U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

23–820 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 112–954 

HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF KEN KOPOCIS 

TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE 

OFFICE OF WATER FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY AND REBECCA WODDER 

TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF 

THE INTERIOR 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 19, 2011 

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

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JULY 19, 2011 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 1 

Inhofe, James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .............................. 3 

Lautenberg, Frank, U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ......................... 5 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 6 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin, U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland .................... 8 

Gillibrand, Kristen, U.S. Senator from the State of New York ........................... 10 

WITNESSES 

Ken Kopocis, Nominated to be Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, Environmental Protection Agency .............................................................................. 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 16 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 19 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 26 

Senator Boozman ....................................................................................... 27 

Rebecca Wodder, Nominated to be Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and 

Parks, Department of the Interior ...................................................................... 29 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 36 

Senator Udall ............................................................................................. 39 

Senator Merkley ........................................................................................ 40 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 42 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 55 

Senator Crapo ............................................................................................ 59 

Senator Boozman ....................................................................................... 62 

(1) 

HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF KEN 

KOPOCIS TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE OFFICE OF WATER FOR 

THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND REBECCA WODDER TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FISH, WILDLIFE AND 

PARKS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

TUESDAY, JULY 19, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The full committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman of 

the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Carper, Lautenberg, Cardin, Udall, 

Merkley, Gillibrand, Inhofe, Barrasso and Boozman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Good afternoon. 

Today, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

will consider the nomination of Ken Kopocis to be Associate Administrator for the Office of Water at the Environmental Protection 

Agency and Rebecca Wodder to be Assistant Secretary for Fish, 

Wildlife and Parks at the Department of the Interior. 

First, I would like to welcome Ken who is well known to members of this committee. From 2006 to 2008, Ken served on the EPW 

Committee Majority staff as Deputy Staff Director for Infrastructure. During his time here, Ken worked on a number of issues including playing a key role—that is understated—in the efforts to 

pass the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. 

It was really a yeoman’s job and I think we all enjoyed working 

with you. It was such a bipartisan effort and I remember all of the 

staff on Senator Inhofe’s side as well, starting with Ruth and her 

team. 

In addition to his time on the EPW Committee, Ken has held 

multiple positions on the House Transportation and Infrastructure 

Committee. His work on water issues spans over 25 years. This 

broad experience with our Nation’s clean water and drinking water 

2 

laws makes him uniquely qualified to deal with the many challenges the EPA Office of Water faces today. 

Mr. Kopocis, as you know, the office which you have been nominated to lead is very important, critically important. You work to 

ensure that families have safe drinking water and to keep our Nation’s lakes and rivers clean. You will be responsible for implementing important programs that keep our children and families 

healthy and safe. 

I believe your background has prepared you well for this position 

and I look forward to hearing how, if confirmed, you will work to 

uphold and implement the public health safeguards administered 

by the Office of Water. 

Next, I would like to welcome Rebecca Wodder who is going to 

have a fuller introduction from Senator Cardin. Since 1995, Ms. 

Wodder has been President and Chief Executive Officer of American Rivers where she has led efforts to help dozens of communities 

restore the health of their rivers through innovation conservation 

measures. 

Ms. Wodder, the Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks 

helps oversee the work of the Fish and Wildlife Service. This agency is the guardian of our natural treasures and species in every 

State of the Union. In my own State of California, the Service manages dozens of wildlife refuges across our State. The Service also 

has a big responsibility for protecting iconic species like the bald 

eagle and the California condor and helps to manage the millions 

of migratory birds that migrate through or winter in California 

every year. 

The Service’s work to protect important species and manage critical wildlife refuges supports tourism and recreation that boosts 

our local economy in California and I know in many other States. 

In 2006, according to the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and 

Wildlife Associated Recreation, we found those activities provided 

$8 billion to our California economy and more than $120 billion to 

the national economy equaling roughly 1 percent of the Nation’s 

GDP. 

Ms. Wodder, if you are confirmed, I will also look forward to your 

leadership in working with the State of California, stakeholders 

and other Federal agencies as they seek to develop and implement 

a plan for restoration of the California Bay Delta that achieves the 

co-equal goals of restoring this precious ecosystem and improving 

water supply reliability. 

This ongoing effort is critical to the future of my State and it will 

only succeed if the Fish and Wildlife Service and other Federal 

agencies are strong and supportive. 

Strong leadership is needed in both positions we are considering 

today. From protecting and preserving the Nation’s national treasures to ensuring that our water is safe to drink and our lakes and 

rivers are clean, the positions for which you have been nominated 

have significant responsibilities. Your jobs will not be easy. There 

will be controversy, there will be difficult decisions, but I do expect 

that you will follow the law and the best available science in all 

your decisionmaking. I look forward to hearing more from you 

today and into the future. 

With that, I will call on our Ranking Member, Senator Inhofe. 

3 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

First, there are a lot of things that will come up the two of you 

will be working with that I have a great concern with in my State 

of Oklahoma. We are looking at some of the ozone standards that 

will be of concern. 

Ken, I have worked with you for a long time. In fact, a lot of the 

time when you were here, I couldn’t remember whether you were 

on my staff or her staff, but nonetheless, we worked closely together in the past even though philosophically, we have a few 

areas where we are not going to be together. I think probably there 

will be more so, Ms. Wodder, in your area judging from the background and some of the statements you have made concerning the 

Clean Water Act. It seems we have gone through quite a few experiences where the Congress will speak, if it is cap and trade. 

This is the thing I like about this committee. You can totally disagree with everything the other guy stands for and love him anyway. 

Such things as the Clean Water Restoration Act, we went 

through that and it was not just rejected but the two authors, 

Oberstar and Feingold were also rejected in the same election. Now 

we are looking at things like cap and trade and other areas we will 

be working with in terms of regulation. 

That is my concern, Ms. Wodder. Some of the statements you 

have made about hydraulic fracturing concern me and I will be 

going over this during question and answer. We are going to be 

asking for a balanced approach to the positions for which you are 

nominated. 

In addition, I expect you to abide by the terms of the agreement 

worked out with the Fish and Wildlife Service with Dan Ashe. We 

spent a long time with Dan Ashe as well as the Secretary of the 

Interior in my office talking about what should Fish and Wildlife 

be doing, what their mission should be. Is this something that is 

again going to try to be used to promote something that was rejected in terms of cap and trade and some of the other issues. 

I have four things to discuss during questions and answers ranging from hydraulic fracturing, the lesser prairie chicken and we 

will cover all those and I look forward to visiting with you, getting 

to know you better and trying to get some clarification as to what 

your commitment is relative to some of the other people in the Administration. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

We are here today to consider two nominations: Ken Kopocis to be Associate Administrator of the Office of Water as well as Rebecca Wodder to be Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 

First and foremost in my mind is certainly the upcoming announcement by the 

EPA to tighten the ozone standard, which would ruin Oklahoma’s and the broader 

American economy. The decision will be announced next week and I will be tracking 

it very closely. 

Turning our attention back to the nominees, I am pleased to see Mr. Kopocis, a 

former EPW Committee staffer, here in our committee room again. We have worked 

4 

together on a number of important bills, and while we may differ on our politics, 

I know he would make a valuable addition to the Office of Water. 

I do have serious concerns about Ms. Wodder’s nomination: she is the CEO of a 

far-left environmental organization and was a staunch supporter of the Clean Water 

Restoration Act, a bill that would have given the Federal Government authority 

over practically every body of water in the country, no matter how small. She is also 

an active proponent of Federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing—a practice that 

is efficiently and effectively regulated by states. 

The selection of Ms. Wodder is a clear departure from her predecessor, Tom 

Strickland, who in testimony before the EPW Committee said that we should actively and aggressively develop our energy resources. Unfortunately, Ms. Wodder’s 

support for regulatory advancement suggests that she would do the opposite. 

As President of American Rivers for more than 15 years, Ms. Wodder provided 

leadership and direction on policies and activities related to the Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program. Other water resources stakeholders have validly expressed serious concerns with these policies and activities. I share their apprehension. 

An Assistant Secretary must be able to appreciate and understand differing perspectives in order to make evenhanded and well-reasoned policy decisions. Today, 

I would like your assurance that you will bring an objective and balanced approach 

to the position for which you are nominated. 

Let me further say that the Obama-EPA’s water policies represent an aggressive, 

heavy handed, top down approach to regulation, which is equivalent to the efforts 

we are seeing with EPA’s air office. 

Today, EPA is proposing to completely change the rights and responsibilities of 

individuals under the Clean Water Act through their new draft guidance. Just as 

the Obama-EPA is attempting to implement a backdoor cap-and-trade through regulation, they are using this water guidance document to implement the Clean Water 

Restoration Act through regulation. Remember, both of these bills were resoundingly rejected last Congress when Democrats held overwhelming majorities. 

By re-interpreting the Rapanos Supreme Court decision and incorporating only 

the expansive language in an attempt to gain jurisdictional authority over new waters, EPA is ignoring both justices’ clear limitations on Federal CWA authority. Not 

only do I believe their interpretation is inappropriate, but furthermore, it is completely improper to attempt to change people’s rights and responsibilities under a 

law through a guidance document. EPA is casting a wide interpretation through 

which they will attempt to legalize through an equally broad rulemaking. I strongly 

oppose EPA’s actions here and sincerely hope that they listen to the 40 other members who joined me in requesting that they abandon any additional actions on this 

document. 

In addition to trying to assert jurisdiction over nearly every drop of water in the 

United States, EPA is issuing a host of new regulations in stormwater, strict numeric runoff controls and drinking water, all while requesting cuts in water programs. I recently released a report exposing the high costs of EPA’s Water Regulations and the impacts on State and local governments called Clouded Waters. This 

report explores the Chesapeake Bay TMDL and Florida Numeric Nutrient Criteria 

which are poised to be expanded to the Mississippi River and other major water 

bodies around the country. These strict regulatory approaches are costly and have 

questionable environmental gains attached to them. Additionally, the report looks 

at EPA’s new stormwater rules, which have the potential to put EPA in control of 

all land use planning decisions in regulated areas and generate mandates that will 

cost billions of dollars. 

EPA’s Office of Water has shown a stunning lack of transparency in their decisionmaking in a number of programs, most recently highlighted by the GAO report 

that went public just last week discussing the Office of Water’s unregulated contaminant monitoring program. I know we all share the desire for clean, safe, affordable water, but after reading that report, it is clear that this lack of transparency 

has led to an incredible amount of distrust with the program. Whether you are advocating for or against regulation, we simply do not know how EPA is even making 

decisions about regulating contaminants. 

Additionally, in 2009 when EPA finalized their Construction and Development Effluent Limitations Guidelines Rule (ELG), it included an arbitrary turbidity limit 

that was based on faulty analysis. The rule ultimately had to be vacated. Additional 

transparency and openness in developing this rule could have prevented this. Furthermore, the Chesapeake Bay model and EPA’s inability to allow enough time for 

review of how the TMDL load allocations were calculated is a major part of the current legal challenges. It is simply inappropriate for EPA to make major regulatory 

5 

decisions in the kind of opaque system that currently exists. It completely undermines the credibility of every regulatory decision EPA makes. 

In addition, I expect Ms. Wodder to abide by the terms of a deal that I worked 

out with Fish & Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe in order to enable his nomination to move forward. Here, Dan Ashe clarified that climate change is not the overarching consideration driving the Service’s day-to-day operations. He went on to 

State that FWS is not responsible for the regulation of greenhouse gases, nor is it 

the Service’s role to address these causative factors through any of its statutory or 

regulatory authorities. Last, he agreed to personally attend multiple stakeholder 

meetings in Oklahoma to discuss the impact of listing the Lesser Prairie Chicken 

under the Endangered Species Act. Oklahomans are rightfully concerned about this 

likely action as it will shut down hundreds of millions of dollars of wind development and harm private property values. 

I look forward to hearing from both nominees and having the opportunity to discuss many of the concerns I have expressed about the direction of the Obama-EPA 

as it relates to ensuring we are taking the right approach to balancing economic and 

environmental needs. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, it is Rebecca’s birthday today, so I want 

to say happy birthday to you. 

Senator INHOFE. Were you going to sing to her? 

Senator BOXER. I was not but I wanted to say, best to you. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much. 

I thank Senator Cardin for the courtesy. I know that he wants 

to introduce the witness. 

I thank the witnesses for agreeing to be of service to our country. 

If confirmed, Rebecca Wodder and Ken Kopocis will become two of 

America’s most important environmental stewards. Protecting public lands and water is always important, especially now when our 

natural resources are under assault from pollution, a warring planet and industries that want to dismantle long-standing environmental protection. 

Ms. Wodder, President Obama’s choice to become the Interior Department’s Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, this 

position is charged with helping to lead our country’s efforts to conserve and protect fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats. Ms. 

Wodder also would be responsible for helping our country deal with 

the very serious problem, White Nose Syndrome, a deadly fungus 

that could wipe out much of our bat population. 

Make no mistake, this is a serious threat. Bats are some of the 

Nation’s most important exterminators. They help to protect our 

Country’s crops from pests, so if we don’t stop this disease from 

spreading, it could trigger a major environmental and economic crisis. 

Ms. Wodder would also have the duty to help preserve and maintain America’s critically important national wildlife refuges which 

too often are overburdened and understaffed. These responsibilities 

dovetail well with Ms. Wodder’s experience which includes working 

with environmental groups grappling with the issues that would 

fall under her jurisdiction at the Interior Department. 

For example, for the past 16 years, Ms. Wodder has led American 

Rivers, a national, nonprofit conservation group that strives to protect and restore the Nation’s waters. In other words, Ms. Wodder 

has dedicated her career to fight for clean water and protecting 

6 

public lands, the same missions that she is nominated to carry out 

as the head of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Her experience will be an 

asset, not a liability, as some on the other side of the aisle have 

suggested. 

Similarly, Mr. Kopocis is nominated to become the Environmental Protection Agency’s Assistant Administrator for Water and 

would bring welcome experience to the position. The EPA’s Office 

of Water is responsible for making sure that drinking water is 

clean and our country’s oceans and watersheds are healthy and 

safe. Mr. Kopocis has worked on water issues for more than a quarter of a century, including several years of service as the top staff 

member of this committee. 

I look forward to hearing from both our witnesses today about 

why we must strengthen our country’s environmental defenses and 

how they would fulfill their duties if confirmed. 

I will just take one more moment to talk about the bats. In New 

Jersey, we have old mine shafts. Some years ago, I went down with 

one of my people into the mine shafts. I love those little bats. I 

didn’t realize how strong they were and how meaningful it was but 

I knew that they were important in the scheme of things. 

At one point in this mine shaft, we had almost 30,000 bats. Now 

there are something close to 1,000 left. That is an indescribable 

blight on what the effects are in terms of their pollination responsibilities in consuming half their weight in insects each and every 

day. I won’t say it has been trivialized but I do think these things 

are important when a species like that is on the verge of disappearance. We are endangering the lives of humans down the line. 

We have excellent candidates here, Madam Chairman, and I 

hope that we will be able to deal promptly, effectively and positively with them. 

Thank you for being here. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator Barrasso. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Today we have a hearing on two nominees who are candidates 

to fill key positions in the Administration. To fill these positions, 

we need nominees who have a record to me that demonstrates an 

ability to be fair and impartial. Most importantly, we need nominees who have a record of understanding environmental issues are 

also economic issues and that we have 9.2 percent unemployment 

in this country today. 

That is why I am troubled by some of the statements made by 

one of the nominees, Ms. Wodder, while she was President of 

American Rivers. I realize she is no longer a spokesperson for 

American Rivers and she may hold differing personal views, but I 

can only go by the record of statements made and try to clarify the 

meaning of those statements through this nomination process. 

On August 5, 2007 in an interview with E, the environmental 

magazine, the nominee praised the economic philosophy of Bill 

McKibben in his book Deep Economies stating that, ‘‘I’m a strong 

supporter of his call for a new economic model based on sustainVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:21 Apr 10, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\23820.TXT VERN
7 

ability. I would like to get my food, power, et cetera, much more 

locally than I do now.’ 

In chapter one of this book, Deep Economies, he states ‘‘growth 

at least as we now create it is producing more in equality than 

prosperity, more insecurity than progress.’ He says ‘‘growth is no 

longer making us happy.’ 

In that same interview when asked which environmental group 

did she most admire, she responds, ‘‘I am a huge fan of the work 

of the Center for the New American Dream which is offering practical choices for living a more sustainable and high quality of life 

in the United States.’ 

The Center for the New American Dream’s website has a whole 

section dedicated to prosperity without growth. The Center’s 

website has many anti-economic quotes not widely accepted, ‘‘the 

case is strong that growth in the affluent U.S. is now doing more 

harm than good.’ It goes on with ‘‘but even if the GDP growth could 

solve the unemployment problem, it shouldn’t solve the unemployment problem because the cost in greenhouse gas emissions is prohibitive.’ 

In the same interview, the nominee stated her position on commercial American agriculture saying ‘‘I object to factory farms.’ In 

April 2001, the nominee stated her opposition to any form of mining, oil and natural gas extraction and increased traditional domestic energy production saying in the Environmental News Service 

that ‘‘damming, drilling, digging and burning to produce energy 

pollute drinking water, deny the public recreational opportunities 

and drive river wildlife to extinction.’ She stated the congressional 

stopgap measures to increase domestic energy production ‘‘will exacerbate these problems without resulting in long term solutions.’ 

In fact, Madam Chairman, American Rivers opposes hydraulic 

fracturing, the key method of extracting America’s abundant domestic supply of natural gas. The extraction of natural gas can create thousands of jobs, not just in the west but in the east as well. 

American Rivers supports the removal of hydroelectric dams on the 

Columbia and Snake Rivers, which will further weaken our power 

grid and businesses that rely on it for affordable power. 

Our nominee has campaigned for the Clean Water Restoration 

Act which would give the Federal Government virtually total control over any wet area of a State. That bill would have regulated 

everything from prairie potholes to dry creek beds, negatively impacting farms and small businesses across the country. If confirmed, the nominee would be in a unique position to have a major 

say in what economic activities would be allowed to occur in our 

States. 

It is for this reason that I am going to seek clarification of the 

nominee’s statements regarding her feeling about balancing environmental concerns while trying to grow our economy given that 

we are at 9.2 percent unemployment in this country today. The 

nominee’s views toward agriculture, mining, oil and natural gas exploration, and energy production need to be clear. With 9.2 percent 

of the Country looking for employment, looking for someone to hire 

them, they need to be assured that this nominee is not opposed to 

economic growth, especially in the important job sectors mentioned 

above. 

8 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. I look forward to the testimony 

and the chance to clarify the nominee’s statements. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Cardin. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I very 

much look forward to this hearing with two important positions to 

be filled, the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water for the 

Environmental Protection Agency and the Assistant Secretary for 

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

Both positions are critically important to our Nation. My top priority in this committee is the Chesapeake Bay, a body of water 

about which I care deeply, because of its economic impact on the 

people of Maryland, because of its environmental importance to our 

way of life, our culture, our history and our future. It is very much 

tied up with the continuation of our partnerships to clean up the 

Chesapeake Bay for all the reasons that I have stated. The two positions being filled here both play a very important part in that 

program. 

To Ken Kopocis, let me say it is a pleasure to see you again. I 

have worked with you not only in this committee but when I was 

in the House of Representatives when I first started in Congress, 

and I have had nothing but deep respect for your commitment to 

public service. You brought your expertise to those of us serving in 

Congress and we know you will continue in that great line of public 

service. 

To Ms. Rebecca Wodder, I am going to officially welcome and introduce you to this committee. I really have the honor to do this. 

First, I want to thank you and your families for your commitment to public service. We know this is not easy. Ms. Wodder, you 

have an interesting way of celebrating your birthday to be able to 

subject yourself to the questioning by our committee. You have already heard some of the preliminaries. We know this is exactly 

what you want to do, to continue your commitment to our community in your willingness to move forward with this position, but 

also doing this on your birthday. 

I really want to underscore the point Senator Barrasso made 

that we want to judge our nominees based upon their records and 

based upon their commitment. I look forward to this hearing. 

One thing I would take exception to is that I hope we are not 

going to be judged on every individual we have given recommendations to over our careers because I think we should be very careful 

about association and placing too much credence on statements we 

make about third parties. 

However, it is absolutely appropriate for us to question as to the 

commitment of each of you to the responsibilities you are seeking 

to ensue. 

I am particularly pleased to introduce Rebecca Wodder. I have 

come to know Rebecca as we have worked together over the last 

few years on a number of critical issues relating to restoring the 

health of America’s rivers and streams. By nominating Ms. 

Wodder, President Obama has chosen a most capable and experiVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:21 Apr 10, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\23820.TXT VERN
9 

enced candidate for Assistant Secretary for Wildlife and Parks for 

the Department of Interior. 

Since 1995, Ms. Wodder has served as President and CEO of 

American Rivers. Madam Chair, I really want to compliment her 

in that role. American Rivers has played a critical role in preserving America’s rivers which in many cases are the fresh water 

supply for our water quality in our great water bodies. Yes, I do 

remember times when our rivers caught fire and thanks to organizations such as American Rivers, we now have a healthier river 

system. She did an excellent job as the CEO of that organization. 

Obviously, she brings to the talent from that position but also understands the responsibilities of the position for which she has 

been nominated. 

Under her skillful leadership, American Rivers has helped dozens of communities implement innovative conservation measures. 

Her success is due to her ability to build effective partnerships 

among government officials and diverse private sector stakeholders 

to protect our Nation’s rivers and fresh water resources. These are 

skills that will serve her well at the Department of Interior. 

Ms. Wodder has been recognized as one of the top 25 outstanding 

conservationists by Outdoor Life Magazine and was named Woman 

of the Year by American Sport Fishing Association. 

As Assistant Secretary for Wildlife and Parks, Ms. Wodder will 

oversee the management of the Nation’s magnificent national wildlife refuge systems including five in Maryland, notably the 27,000 

acre Blackwater Refuge which we will be talking about after your 

confirmation. In addition, she oversees the work of the National 

Park Service which writer, Wallace Stegner, rightfully called 

‘‘America’s best idea.’ 

I look forward to working with Ms. Wodder on the establishment 

of a new national historical park on Maryland’s eastern shore to 

commemorate and celebrate the outstanding life of one of America’s 

greatest heroes, Harriet Tubman. That park is included not only in 

Maryland but in the great State of New York. 

I appreciate our witnesses being here and I look forward to this 

hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN CARDIN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Madame Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today. 

I look forward to hearing from the nominees, each of whom is being considered 

for a role that is critically important to the protection of our environment, with implications for human health and safety, economic growth, and countless other issues 

of vital importance to our Nation. 

Both nominees have impressive backgrounds in environmental issues. In fact, I 

have known Ken Kopocis since I was first elected to Congress, and have worked personally with him on a number of water-related issues. I look forward to hearing 

from him today, and to working closely with him on clean water issues going forward. 

I am also particularly pleased to introduce Rebecca Wodder. I have come to know 

Rebecca as we have worked together over the last few years on a number of critical 

issues relating to restoring the health of America’s rivers and streams. In nominating Ms. Wodder, President Obama has chosen a most capable and experienced 

candidate for Assistant Secretary for Wildlife and Parks for the Department of Interior. 

Since 1995, Ms. Wodder has served as President and CEO of American Rivers. 

Under her skillful leadership, American Rivers has helped dozens of communities 

10 

implement innovative conservation measures. Her success is due to her ability to 

build effective partnership among government officials and diverse private sector 

stakeholders to protect our nation’s river and freshwater resources. These are the 

skills that will serve her well at the Department of Interior: a passion for the work 

and a collaborative style. 

Ms. Wodder has been recognized as a Top 25 Outstanding Conservationists by 

Outdoor Life Magazine and was named Woman of the Year by American 

Sportfishing Association. 

As Assistant Secretary for Wildlife and Parks, Ms. Wodder will oversee the management the nation’s magnificent National Wildlife Refuge system, including 5 in 

Maryland, notably the 27,000 acre Blackwater Refuge. 

In addition, she will oversee the work of the National Park Service, which the 

writer Wallace Stegner rightly called America’s Best Idea. I look forward to working 

with Ms. Wodder on the establishment of a new National Historical Park on Maryland’s Eastern Shore to commemorate and celebrate the outstanding life of one of 

America’s greatest heroes, Harriet Tubman. 

I appreciate the opportunity to hear from both nominees. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

We are joined by Senator Gillibrand. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KRISTEN GILLIBRAND, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Senator GILLIBRAND. I just want to welcome the nominees. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

We are going to hear from you but I thought before you each 

speak, you would like to introduce your families, so Ken, do you 

want to start and Rebecca, you can follow. 

Mr. KOPOCIS. With me today is my wife, Chris, she has been my 

wife for 31 years, and our daughter, Kim. We also have a son, Jeff, 

who is currently working in Massachusetts who couldn’t be with us 

today. 

Senator BOXER. Rebecca. 

Ms. WODDER. Chairman Boxer, I would like to introduce my husband, James Van Erden and our daughter, Jayme. We have another daughter as well, Jennifer, who can’t be here today because 

she is in Panama serving as a Peace Corps volunteer. 

Senator BOXER. We thank her for her great service. We thank 

both of you and your families for being willing to go through the 

process and to work for your country. 

Mr. Kopocis, why don’t we start with you. You have 5 minutes 

to address us and we will move on to Ms. Wodder. 

STATEMENT OF KEN KOPOCIS, NOMINATED TO BE ASSISTANT 

ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF WATER, ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. KOPOCIS. Thank you. 

Good afternoon, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe, and 

other members of the committee. I am honored and humbled to appear before you today. 

I have many memories of being in this room as either a Senate 

or House committee staff member over my 26 years on Capitol Hill, 

engaging in debates that were often lively, robust and resulted in 

advancing national policies. While I have sat at this table scores 

of times, this is a distinct perspective. 

To date, the greatest rewards of my career have been in assisting 

both Senators and Representatives in developing bicameral, biparVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:21 Apr 10, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\23820.TXT VERN
11 

tisan legislation to address the Nation’s critical water resources 

and water quality needs. However, despite all those memories, it 

is my greatest privilege to appear before you as the President’s 

nominee to Assistant Administrator for the EPA Office of Water. 

I only hope that if I am confirmed, I can fulfill the President’s and 

Administrator Jackson’s confidence in me. 

I have spent the majority of my professional life working to address some of the Nation’s most critical needs. These include eight 

Water Resources Development Acts, the Water Quality Act of 1987 

which strengthened the Nation’s commitment to clean water, protecting and restoring the Everglades and the Florida Keys, ending 

the practice of using our oceans as dumping grounds for sludge and 

garbage, oil pollution prevention, preparedness and response following the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989 and developing targeted programs for California’s Bay Delta, Chesapeake Bay, the Great 

Lakes, Long Island Sound, Lake Pontchartrain and the Gulf of 

Mexico, the Tijuana River Valley, San Diego’s beaches and the 

U.S.-Mexico border region. 

I am proud to have had a role in protecting the Nation’s beaches 

and restoring our economically vital estuaries; addressing the impacts of invasive and non-indigenous species; cleaning up hazardous waste and returning areas affected by our Nation’s industrial legacy to productive use through the Superfund and 

Brownfields program, all while protecting public health and the environment and advancing economic opportunity. 

While the Nation has made great strides in protecting public 

health and the environment, we have yet to achieve the objective 

established by Congress in 1972 of restoring and maintaining the 

chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. 

If approved by this committee and confirmed by the Senate, it is 

my intent to work with all of you toward achieving that objective 

for this and future generations. 

In my work on the committees, I counseled members on how to 

develop and achieve strategies for legislation in a manner that 

assures cooperation and collaboration among all interested and 

necessary parties. I have always attempted to approach issues with 

an open mind, interacting with members of the public, State and 

local officials and interest groups on legislative and program development and implementation. 

I have sought to analyze facts, the law and consequences in developing solutions to national and local problems. I have had the 

privilege of working on legislation that while not always non-controversial, always enjoyed bipartisan support regardless of the majority party in Congress or the White House. Chairman Boxer, 

Ranking Member Inhofe, your work on the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 was a tangible demonstration of how you can 

work together toward a common goal. 

One of the lessons I have learned from my work on Capitol Hill 

is that the allies on your side of the issues do not always have the 

correct answer and the advocates on the other side of an issue are 

not always wrong. It can be possible to address issues in a manner 

that achieves one’s stated goals and respects the legitimate perspectives of others in the debate. 

12 

I have observed that too often people hear but do not listen. If 

approved and confirmed, you can count on me to listen to all perspectives in the debate. I believe that we all share a common goal 

of clean and healthy water. We demand the confidence that when 

we turn the tap anywhere in the United States, there will be an 

abundant and safe supply of drinking water. 

We can restore and protect our precious resources, such as the 

California Bay Delta, Everglades, Chesapeake Bay, Lake Pontchartrain, Long Island Sound, Narragansett Bay. We should be 

able to swim at our beaches without fear of illness or infection. We 

can have productive and economically vital fisheries and eat the 

fish that we catch. We can create opportunities for the next generation that exceed those that were available for us. 

Thank you and I welcome any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kopocis follows:] 

13 


23820.001

STATEMENT OF KEN KOPOCIS 

NOMINEE FOR ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE 

OFFICE OF WATER 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

BEFORE THE 

SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE 

JULY 19, 2011 

Good Morning Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe, and other members of tbe 

Committee. 

I am honored and humbled to appear before you today. I have many memories of being 

in this room as either a Senate or House committee staff member over my 26 years on· Capitol 

Hill - engaging in debates that were often lively, robust, and which resulted in advancing 

National policies. While I have sat at this table scores of times, tbis is a distinct perspective. 

To date, tbe greatest rewards in my career have been in assisting botb Senators and 

Representatives in developing bicameral, bipartisan legislation to address the Nation's critical 

water resources and water quality needs. 

However, despite all those memories, it is my greatest privilege to appear before you as 

tbe President's nominee as Assistant Administrator for tbe EPA Office of Water. I only hope 

tbat ifl am confirmed I can fulfill the President's and Administrator Jackson's confidence in me. 

I have spent tbe majority of my professional life working to address some of the Nation's 

most critical water resources needs. This includes eight Water Resources Development Acts; tbe 

Water Quality Act of 1987, which strengthened tbe Nation's commitment to clean water; 

protecting and restoring tbe Everglades and the Florida Keys; ending the practice of using our 

oceans as dumping grounds for sludge and garbage; oil pollution prevention, preparedness and 

response following the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989; and developing targeted programs for 
14 


23820.002

California's Bay-Delta, Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes, Long Island Sound, Lake 

Pontchartrain and the Gulf of Mexico, the Tijuana River Valley and San Diego's beaches, and 

the U.S.-Mexico border region. 

I am proud to have had a role in protecting the Nation's beaches and restoring our 

economically vital estuaries; addressing the impacts of invasive, nonindigenous species; cleaning 

up hazardous waste, and returning areas affected by the Nation's industrial legacy to productive 

use through the Superfund and Brownfields program, all while protecting public health and the 

environment, and advancing economic opportunity. 

While the Nation has made great strides in protecting public health and the environment, 

we have yet to achieve the objective established in 1972 of restoring and maintaining the 

chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. If approved by this 

Committee and confirmed by the Senate, it is my intent to work with all of you toward achieving 

that objective for this and future generations. 

In my work on the committees, I have counseled Members of Congress on how to 

develop and achieve strategies for legislation in a manner that assures cooperation and 

collaboration among all interested and necessary parties. I have always attempted to approach 

issues with an open mind, interacting with members of the public, State and local officials, and 

interest groups on legislative and program development and implementation. I have sought to 

analyze facts, the law, and consequences in developing solutions to national and local problems. 

I have had the privilege of working on legislation that, while not always 

noncontroversial, always enjoyed bipartisan support - regardless of the majority party in 

Congress or the White House. 

Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe, your work on the Water Resources 

Development Act of 2007 was a tangible demonstration of how working together can achieve a 

common goal. 
15 


23820.003

One of the lessons I have learned from my work on Capitol Hill is that the allies on your 

side of an issue do not always have the correct answer, and the advocates on the other side of the 

issue are not always wrong. It can be possible to address issues in a manner that achieves one's 

stated goals, and respects the legitimate perspective of others in the debate. I have observed that 

too often people hear, but do not listen. If approved and confirmed, you can count on me to 

listen to all perspectives in the debate. 

I believe that we all share a common goal of clean and healthy waters; we demand the 

confidence that when we turn the tap anywhere in the United States, there will be an abundant 

and safe supply of drinking water; we can restore and protect our precious resources such as the 

California-Bay Delta, the Everglades, Chesapeake Bay, Lake Pontchartrain and the Gulf Coast, 

Narragansett Bay, and Long Island Sound; we should be able to swim at our beaches without 

fear of infection or illness; we can have productive and economically vital fisheries and eat the 

fish that we catch; and we can create opportunities for the next generation that exceed those that 

were available for us. 

Thank you and I welcome any questions you may have. 
16 


23820.004

Environment and Public Works Committee Hearing 

July 19, 2011 

Follow-Up Questions for Written Submission 

Questions for Kopocis 

Questions from: 

Senator Barbara Boxer 

Infrastructure Funding 

1. Mr. Kopocis, the office of water is responsible for administering two of the nation's most 

important infrastructure investment programs- the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water 

State Revolving Funds (SRFs). Unfortunately, despite increased investment in the SRFs 

in recent years, infrastructure in this country continues to decline. The American Society 

of Civil Engineers rates our wastewater and drinking water infrastructure a D-. 

Do you commit to work with this Committee to ensure that we are adequately investing 

in the Nation's wastewater and drinking water infrastructure? 

Even in the tight budget times that we face, will you work to ensure EPA continues to 

place a priority on investment in the State Revolving Funds? 

Answer: Yes, if confirmed I will work with this Committee and with states, tribes and 

local government partners to provide funding, guidance and technical assistance to 

implement water quality programs. 

Use of Best Available Science 

2. Mr. Kopocis, it is critical that EPA use the best available science when implementing 

federal laws, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act, and carrying out policies to protect 

water quality in lakes and rivers. 

Could you please describe the importance that you place on ensuring the use of the best 

available science in making decisions under the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking 

Water Act? 

If you are confirmed, will you ensure that the Agency continues the use of the best 

available science in making decisions about safe drinking water and clean rivers and 

lakes? 

Answer: I believe in the importance of using the best available science and if confirmed 

I will work with this Committee, with the Office of Water and with other office in EPA to 

ensure that we use the best available science when making decisions in implementing 

water quality programs. 
17 


23820.005

Importance of Following tbe Law 

3. Mr. Kopocis, Congress passed the nation's bedrock public health and environmental 

laws, such as the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, with strong bipartisan 

support. 

These laws are designed to help ensure that the EPA plays a strong role in protecting our 

families and children when they tum on the tap for a glass of water in the morning, or 

when they take a family trip over a weekend to go swimming. 

Can you please describe the approach that you will take to faithfully and transparently 

ensure that such federal public health and environmental safeguards are implemented? 

Answer: If confirmed I will work with this Committee and with federal, state, tribal and 

local government partners to ensure compliance with the water quality laws and 

regulations. 

Unregulated Contaminant Program 

4. Mr. Kopocis, last week the Government Accountability Office issued a report that found 

serious problems with EPA's implementation of safeguards to address unregulated 

drinking water contaminants. 

Deputy Administrator Perciasepe described some of the steps that EPA is taking to 

address such problems and said that the Agency is committed to working with this 

Committee and the GAO to build a strong unregulated contaminant drinking water 

program. 

If you are confirmed, do you agree to work with my staff and the GAO to implement the 

reforms needed to strengthen public health safeguards and the transparency ofEPA's 

unregulated contaminant program? 

Answer: Yes, if confirmed I will work with this Committee and the GAO to strengthen 

our water quality programs including the unregulated contaminant program. 

Drinking Water Data Quality 

5. Mr. Kopocis, the Government Accountability Oflice recently released a report that found 

problems with the data that states submit to EPA to help ensure compliance with Safe 

Drinking Water Act protections. 

Among other actions, the GAO recommended that EPA conduct audits of this data to 

verify that it is accurate. 
18 


23820.006

If confirmed, do you agree to meet with my staff on the issue of drinking water data 

quality problems and work to address such problems, including through implementation 

of the GAO recommendations? 

Answer: Yes, if confirmed I will work with this Committee and the GAO to strengthen 

our water quality programs including drinking water data issues. 
19 


23820.007

Senator James M. Inhofe 

1. Will you treat requests from minority parties in Congress with the same urgency and 

respect as majority party requests? 

Answer: Yes 

2. Do you believe that if an agency were to change the rights and responsibilities under a 

law, they should go through notice and comment rulemaking prior to making that 

decision? 

Answer: Yes, as required by the Administrative Procedure Act, when an agency 

undertakes a legislative rulemaking, it should seek public comment on any proposal and 

consider and respond to comments in making a final decision on the proposal. 

3. EPA estimates in their most recent water needs surveys that drinking water necessitates 

$334.8 billion and clean water $298.1 billion. In your opinion, how important is 

infrastructure funding to the delivery of clean water? How important are the SRF 

program funds in helping states comply with unfunded mandates? 

Answer: Infrastructure funding is crucial to the delivery of clean water and for helping 

states and cities comply with federal, state and local laws. If confirmed, I will work with 

this Committee and with states, tribes and local government partners to provide funding, 

guidance and technical assistance to implement water quality programs. 

4. EPA Office of Water had a number of issues raised regarding the transparency and 

accountability in their decision-making process in recent decisions. If confirmed, will 

you commit to being open and transparent concerning how decisions are made by the 

Office of Water? What specifically will you do to ensure that these transparency issues 

do not continue? 

Answer: I believe in the importance of transparency and accountability in decisionmaking. If confirmed, I will work with this Committee to ensure that decisions are made 

in a transparent manner so that decision makers are held accountable. 

5. I understand that you worked on Mr. Oberstar's staff when he was pushing the Clean 

Water Restoration Act. In spite of the Clean Water Restoration Act being resoundingly 

defeated last Congress, it appears that EPA is attempting to gain the jurisdiction that it 

would have received through that Act through their new Draft Guidance document. I am 

extremely concerned about this course of action for a number of reasons. While 1 do not 

expect the President to nominate someone who shares my views on the limits of 

jurisdiction, I am concerned that you may not think any waters fall outside of the scope of 

Federal jurisdiction. Please tell me, in your opinion, should any water features not be 

federal? Please describe those features. 
20 


23820.008

Answer: The scope of"waters of the United States" does not include all waters in the 

United States. EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have described types of 

features the agencies believe are generally not considered to be a water of the United 

States under the Clean Water Act. I believe that complying with the law is crucial, and 

any interpretation of the scope of the Clean Water Act must fully recognize relevant 

judicial decisions. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that federal jurisdiction over water 

quality programs is implemented in a manner consistent with the Clean Water Act, 

regulations, and existing case law. 

6. If you are confirmed, please describe how the office of water would use guidance 

documents and what the proper use of a guidance document is. 

Answer: Guidance documents do not create or impose binding legal requirements, 

change applicable law, or constrain agency discretion. In fact, agencies often use this 

flexibility to depart from their guidance documents in light of relevant facts and law. The 

EPA's decisions, including its permitting decisions, must be based on applicable law and 

the EPA's discretion under the law. 

If confirmed, I will work within the EPA Office of Water to use guidance documents 

primarily in two ways. Guidance documents could be used to provide EPA staffwith 

information on the policies and procedures that they are expected to follow in carrying 

out their jobs. Other guidance documents could be used to provide states, the regulated 

community, and the public with additional clarity regarding how the EPA expects to 

apply relevant laws and regulations. 

The EPA's use of guidance documents is an important tool for communicating with 

states, regulated entities and the public. One particularly important use of guidance is to 

explain the EPA's understanding of scientific developments that may affect its review of 

permits. Guidance can be a timely and productive means to inform the EPA regions, 

states and regulated entities of how new data and studies, where appropriate and when 

based on the specific facts, can be used to meet applicable laws and regulations. 

7. On April22, 2011, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection filed a petition 

with the EPA asking the federal agency to withdraw its nutrient rulemaking in Florida. 

EPA responded to this petition on June 14th by "not granting or denying the petition;" 

instead, EPA is holding the petition in "abeyance pending the results of Florida's 

intended rulemaking." In short, EPA failed to give Florida the "yes" or "no" answer that 

was requested. This non-response has created a cloud of uncertainty. The essence of the 

Florida petition was for EPA to revoke its federal rulemaking, so Florida could move 

forward with its own nutrient policies while on a level playing field with the other 49 

states (i.e. while not under an EPA necessity determination and federal rulemaking). It 

would be extremely difficult for Florida to refine its state nutrient rules while EPA also 

continues to develop and implement conflicting federal rules for Florida. Florida 

deserves a simple "yes" or "no" answer. 

a. Will EPA give the state a "yes" or "no" answer to the Florida petition? 
21 


23820.009

b. By what date will EPA give Florida a "yes" or "no" answer? 

Answer: Because I have not yet been confirmed, I am not aware of EPA's plans for 

responding to Florida's petition. It is my understanding that Acting Assistant 

Administrator Nancy Stoner's letter to Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

(FDEP) Secretary Herschel Vinyard Jr. on June 13,2011 was described as EPA's initial 

response to FDEP's petition, pending an intended rulemaking by FDEP. EPA's letter 

encouraged FDEP to adopt protective nutrient criteria, and stated that if such criteria are 

sufficient to address the concerns underlying EPA's detennination and rule, are approved 

by EPA, and enter into legal force and effect in Florida, EPA would promptly initiate 

rulemaking to repeal the corresponding federally promulgated numeric nutrient criteria. 

If confirmed, I will work with this Committee and the State of Florida on nutrient water 

quality standards. 

8. As you know, EPA and the Army Corps are now in the process of taking public comment 

on their latest proposed guidance to define the term "Water of the United States." Do you 

think a given feature in the landscape could simultaneously be both a "water of the U.S." 

and a "point source"? Should the upcoming EPA and Corps guidance provide clear 

criteria to distinguish between "point sources" and "waters of the U.S."? 

Answer: I understand that EPA's proposed guidance does not address the definition of 

point source, but instead is intended to provide clearer and more predictable guidelines 

for whether a waterway, water body, or wetland is a water of the United States subject to 

the Clean Water Act. If confim1ed, I will work with this Committee on these 

jurisdictional issues to ensure that decisions are made consistent with the Clean Water 

Act, regulations, and existing case law. 

9. The "point source" definition in the CW A states that such a feature is a pollutant 

conveyance "including but not limited to any ditch." The CWA does not define "ditch." 

How would you define a "ditch"? Do you think the upcoming EPA/Corps final guidance 

should specifically give regulators and land owners direction on the jurisdictional status 

of ditches under the CW A? 

Answer: I agree that the agencies' guidance should help provide clarity and 

predictability in making decisions about what waters are protected by the Clean Water 

Act. My understanding is that EPA's proposed guidance does not define "ditch," and 

instead continues the agencies' longstanding approach to ditches based on Section 404(f) 

of the Clean Water Act and existing agency policies. If confirmed, I will work with this 

Committee on these jurisdictional issues to ensure that decisions are made consistent with 

the Clean Water Act, regulations, and existing case law. 

10. MS4s are "point sonrces" under the CW A. In tact, section 402(p) sets up requirements 

where MS4s, which discharge stormwater, must get NPDES permits. Do you think that a 

permitted MS4 -which is clearly a "point source"- is also a "water of the US?" Do you 
22 


23820.010

think the upcoming EPA/Corps final guidance should specifically give regulators and 

landowners' direction on the jurisdictional status of MS4s under the CW A? 

Answer: I understand that EPA's proposed guidance is focused on defining the term 

"waters of the United States" and not clarifying the definition of the term "point source." 

If confirmed, I will work with this Committee on these jurisdictional issues to ensure that 

decisions are made consistent with the Clean Water Act, regulations, and existing case 

law and toward ensuring certainty and predictability for regulators and owners ofMS4s. 

11. The Supreme Court ruled, in Entergy Corporation v. Riverkeeper, Inc. et al. (April l, 

2009), that it was permissible for EPA to require cost-benefit analysis when considering 

what fish protection technology must be deployed to meet the requirements of Section 

316(b) of the Clean Water Act. I understand that the EPA allows consideration of costbenefit analysis in its draft rule, but only for entrainment of fish. Conversely, the 

impingement standard in the draft rule has a one-size-fits-all regulatory approach, with no 

allowance for cost-benefit analysis. Please describe your views on the omission of cost 

benefit analysis from the impingement requirements. What might the rationale be for 

different approaches to the entrainment and impingement parts of the draft rule? Will you 

commit to consider the probability that a substantial number of facilities may not be able 

to comply with the draft impingement requirements? 

Answer: As you indicated, the Supreme Court in Entergy ruled that it was permissible, 

but not required, for EPA to consider costs and benefits in establishing 316(b) technology 

requirements. It is my understanding that the Office of Water has already received a 

number of comments about the impingement standard in the proposed rule, including the 

role of cost. If confirmed, I will work with this Committee to ensure that EPA adequately 

considers these comments as it develops a final rule. 

12. As you know, in December, the Environmental Working Group reported that cities 

around the country had hexavalent chromium in their drinking water. Following that 

report, EPA began looking at regulating hexavalent chromium separately from total 

chromium under the SDW A. 

a. On March 29, 2010, EPA published its 6-year review of the drinking water 

regulation for total chromium and stated, "The Agency does not believe a revision 

to the NPDWR for total chromium is appropriate at this time." Since EPA based 

the total chromium drinking water standard, in large part, on a total hexavalent 

chromium level, what has changed? 

Answer: I understand that the current drinking water standard for total chromium 

includes all forms of chromium and was based on the best science at the time. To 

keep up to date with the best available science, I understand that EPA is finalizing 

a new health effects assessment. If confirmed, I will work with this Committee 

and within EPA to carefully review the conclusions to determine if the current 

standard should be revised or a new standard should be promulgated. 
23 


23820.011

b. Since the current National Drinking Water Standard for total chromium is 100 

parts per billion and EPA established this standard based upon a consideration of 

chromium 6, is our US drinking water supply safe? How much chromium 6 did 

you assume was in the 100 ppb? Are there any US drinking water systems that are 

unsafe because of chromium 6 levels? 

Answer: I understand that data reported to EPA from states show that all water 

systems are in compliance with the current total chromium standard. The current 

standard has been as protective and precautionary as the science has allowed. If 

confirmed, I will work with this Committee and within EPA to keep the standard 

consistent with the best available science. 

c. In 2009, EPA indicated that it would publish its draft IRIS Toxicological Review 

for hexavalent chromium in 2012. I understand that in 2009, the Agency 

scientists were aware of mode of action research that would extend the research 

performed at high chromium 6 doses by the National Toxicology Program and use 

more environmentally-relevant doses as well. Since this research will be 

available in 20 II and will provide the data specified in EPA guidance documents, 

as EPA prefers, for the evaluation of chemicals for regulations, including mode of 

action, pharmacokinetics, genomics, and tissue specific concentrations at drinking 

water doses, why did EPA move up the release of the draft IRIS Toxicological 

Review to 2010? Additionally, while I appreciate EPA's sensitivity to the 

importance of acting deliberately and in a timely manner to address chromium 6 

in drinking water, I understand that in the expedited time line, EPA plans to 

release its final IRIS Toxicological Review in the second quarter of2011 before it 

considers the mode of action study results. Shouldn't EPA consider the results 

from this important study in their risk assessment rather than rush to finalizing its 

assessment as critical information becomes available? 

Answer: IRIS assessments are human health assessments. They are not full risk 

assessments and they are not regulatory decisions. This health assessment could 

be one piece of information considered by the Office of Water in making 

decisions about water related regulations. It is a scientific assessment made by 

the Office of Research and Development and not by the Office of Water. 

Additionally, because I have not yet been confirmed and do not have access to 

deliberative information, I am not aware of EPA's plans tor using the health 

assessment. 

If confirmed, I will work with this Committee and with other offices at EPA to 

ensure that IRIS human health assessments are based on the most current and best 

available independently peer-reviewed published scientific information. 

d. Getting the science right the first time is a high priority for our regulatory 

decision-making process. Hexavalent chromium in water at concentrations of 

more than I part per million (1,000 ppb) makes water turn yellow. Additionally, 

it is my understanding that the National Toxicology Program's Study used 
24 


23820.012

concentrations of5,000 ppb (low dose) to 18,000 ppb (high dose) in their rodent 

study. In fact, the chromium 6levels in the drinking water of the NTP study was 

so concentrated that many animals had noticeably reduced intake of water. 

Answer: If confirmed, I will work with this Committee and with other offices at 

EPA to ensure that water quality decisions are based on the most current and best 

available independently peer-reviewed published scientific information. 

e. As described in the EPA cancer guidelines, extrapolating results in animal studies 

should ideally be based upon an understanding of the mode( s) of action 

underlying the development of tumors in an animal study. If additional studies 

providing more information relative to mode of action were available soon, 

shouldn't EPA consider such information in its risk assessment? 

Answer: Scientific determinations must be made based on the best available 

science. If confirmed, I will work with this Committee and with other offices at 

EPA to ensure that water quality decisions are based on the most current and best 

available independently peer-reviewed published scientific information. 

f. Since EPA's own guidelines [cancer risk guidelines, mode of action guidelines, 

and pharmacokinetic guidelines] indicate a preference for data at doses closer to 

human exposures, wouldn't EPA's IRIS Toxicological Review be improved if it 

included information on low-dose exposures to better extrapolate results from 

laboratory animals to human exposures? 

Answer: If confirmed, I will work with this Committee and with other offices at 

EPA to ensure that water quality decisions are based on the most current and best 

available independently peer-reviewed published scientific information. 

g. While I know that EPA scientists are aware of ongoing mode of action research at 

drinking water levels, are you aware that research on low-dose exposures and 

mode of action is underway? 

Answer: If confirmed, I will work with this Committee and with other offices at 

EPA to ensure that water quality decisions are based on the most current and best 

available independently peer-reviewed published scientific information. 

h. Utilities have raised concerns with my office about EPA's decisions regarding 

the technical assistance to monitor for chromium 6, including the lack of a fully 

validated analytical method, inability for the agency to collect and use the data 

generated and lack of explanation of how to communicate the health effects to the 

public. Please explain EPA's decision-making regarding the technical assistance 

and how EPA is responding to the concerns raised by utilities. 

Answer: It is my understanding that EPA is working with state and local officials 

to better determine how wide-spread and prevalent hexavalent chromium is in 
25 


23820.013

public drinking water systems. The Agency has provided guidance to systems 

about how to test for hexavalent chromium and if confirmed, I will work with this 

Committee and with states to help address utilities' concerns. 

i. On May 12, 2011 EPA convened a panel of scientific experts on hexavalent 

chromium to review the agency's draft risk assessment and the studies on which it 

is based. What were the conclusions of the panel? How will EPA be responding to 

the suggestions and comments? 

Answer: I understand that EPA convened an external scientific peer review for 

hexavalent chromium. Because I have not yet been confirmed and do not have 

access to deliberative information, I am not aware ofEPA's plans for responding 

to the panel's report. If confirmed, I will work with this Committee to address the 

panel's report. 
26 


23820.014

Senator David Vitter 

I. If confirmed, will you work to affirm and defend the Agency's 35 year old nonpoint 

source regulation and actively work to restore the 3 5 year treatment of forest roads and 

storm water management systems as nonpoint? 

Answer: In August 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided in 

Northwest Environmental Defense Center (NEDC) v. Brown that stormwater runoff from 

certain logging roads that is collected by and discharged from a system of ditches, 

culverts and channels is a point source for which a National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required. Historically, logging roads were 

intentionally designed to direct stormwater into streams via ditches, channels and 

culverts. More recent design standards seek to direct drainage onto porous forest soils for 

infiltration, so they do not discharge into waters of the United States. If confirmed, I will 

work with this Committee and with stakeholders to develop collaborative approaches for 

responding to the court decision. 

2. Please discuss whether you believe the decisions in Rapanos and SWANCC were 

consistent with the Clean Water Act's federal jurisdiction and if they should be defended 

by the EPA? 

Answer: If confirmed, I will implement the EPA water quality programs consistent with 

the Clean Water Act, regulations, and existing case law including decisions of the U.S. 

Supreme Court. 

3. Please discuss your overall view of the economic impact of the citizen suit provisions of 

the Clean Water Act. 

Answer: To supplement federal and state enforcement of the Clean Water Act, Congress 

provided citizen suit authority under section 505 of the Clean Water Act. I am not aware 

of any analysis of the overall economic impact of the citizen suit provisions and do not 

have adequate information on which to base a response. 

4. Please discuss your thoughts, and intended actions if confirmed, on how the agency can 

rectify the challenges as a result of National Cotton Council, and specifically NPDES 

permitting? 

Answer: I understand that in response to the the Sixth Circuit Court's 2009 decision on 

National Cotton Council, EPA has been working with a wide range of government, 

industry, and nongovernmental stakeholders to develop a general permit for applicators 

that apply pesticides directly to water. If confirmed, I will continue EPA's work to fulfill 

its obligation under the court's decision and work with stakeholders to ensure that the 

Agency complies with the decision while minimizing any burdens. 
27 


23820.015

Senator John Boozman 

I. l am concerned about a perceived "sue and settle" alliance between the agency and 

environmental groups. These settlement agreements allow policy to be made without 

public and stakeholder input. Aspects of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL and new 

regulations governing Combined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are just two 

examples of EPA commitments that have emerged from settlement agreements with 

environmental groups. Do you agree that a "sue and settle" approach to policy making is 

inappropriate and, if confirmed, what steps would you take within the Office of Water to 

ensure that there is stakeholder input when potential settlement agreements would 

commit the agency to significant policy changes? 

Answer: Under more than a dozen environmental statutes, Congress has tasked EPA 

with scores of duties, many with associated statutory deadlines. Each year, EPA takes a 

large number of actions classified as "final rules" and a broad array of permitting and 

other final agency actions. A substantial proportion of these actions are challenged in 

court. ln addition, each year EPA is subject to numerous "mandatory duty" lawsuits 

alleging that that the Agency has failed to take an action it is required by law to take. 

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) represents EPA in defending these suits, and the 

Agency litigates many cases to final judgment. In some cases, however, EPA determines, 

with DOJ's concurrence, that it is in the best interests of the federal government and the 

public to resolve the litigation through settlement. The determination whether to settle a 

lawsuit is based principally on EPA's assessment, with DOJ's advice, of the Agency's 

duties under the relevant statute and the legal risks presented by the litigation. These 

factors are applied in an evenhanded manner, without regard to the identity of the 

plaintiff or petitioner in the case. The Assistant Attorney General for DOJ's Environment 

and Natural Resources Division must concur in any decision to enter into a settlement 

agreement or consent decree. In addition, a court generally will enter a consent decree 

only if the court has determined that the decree is fair, reasonable, and consistent with the 

public interest. 

EPA does not commit to the substance of final rules during settlement negotiations. The 

substance of a final rule is the result of the rulemaking process, which includes notice and 

comment. 

2. I am also concerned with the EPA's issuance of guidance documents on key issues 

instead of engaging in the standard rulemaking process. A recent example of this is the 

agency's release of draft guidance concerning Clean Water Act permitting authority 

earlier this year. This draft guidance document suggested a significant expansion of 

federal authority under the Clean Water Act. Given the potential impacts, the EPA 

should not create confusion and uncertainty by issuing guidance that appears to change 

established policy. If confirmed, would you commit to ensuring that any significant 

policy changes within the jurisdiction of the Office of Water are conducted through the 

formal rulemaking process? 
28 


23820.016

Answer: Guidance documents and policy statements do not create or impose binding 

legal requirements, change applicable law, or constrain agency discretion. In fact, 

agencies often use this flexibility to depart from their policy statements and guidance 

documents in light of relevant facts and law. When the EPA seeks to change existing or 

impose new legally binding requirements, under the Administrative Procedure Act, it 

must do so through notice and comment rulemaking. 

The proposed guidance concerning the scope of "waters of the United States," cannot 

expand federal authority. Binding legal requirements are established by the Clean Water 

Act, federal regulations, and relevant case law. 

If confirmed, I will work with this Committee to ensure that decisions are made 

consistent with the Clean Water Act, regulations, and existing case law. 
29 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Wodder. 

STATEMENT OF REBECCA WODDER, NOMINATED TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Ms. WODDER. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, Senator Inhofe and 

members of the committee. 

I am deeply honored to appear before you today as President 

Obama’s nominee for Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and 

Parks. 

I would like to begin with a personal introduction. I am from a 

farming family, born and raised in Nebraska. My parents grew up 

during the Depression and survived grasshopper plagues in the 

Dust Bowl. Hardships had eased a bit by the time I was born but 

I learned the value of hard work early on and never took any good 

fortune for granted. I spent the weekends and summers of my 

youth on my grandparents’ farm helping with chores and developing my love of barnyards, farm animals and cornfields. 

My parents were both teachers and my father taught at every 

level from a one room schoolhouse to the University of Nebraska. 

Public service and education were important values in my family 

and I have spent most of my career working for public interest organizations. My lifelong commitment to conservation was awakened by an experience in the spring of 1970. 

As a senior in high school, my chemistry teacher tapped me to 

organize activities for the first Earth Day. Inspired and eager to 

play a role in cleaning up pollution, I went on to get under graduate degrees in Biology and Environmental Studies and Master of 

Science Degrees in Landscape Architecture and Water Resources 

Management. 

In graduate school, I led a study of the Lower St. Croix Wild and 

Scenic River. I spent a summer exploring the river, talking to 

power boaters and paddlers, anglers and campers about their experiences and how to minimize conflicts with other users. A lasting 

memory from that time is discovering a cache of sepia-toned, turnof-the-century photographs of the St. Croix. 

On both sides of the river as far as the eye could see, the land 

was completely cut over and the river itself was choked with logs. 

It was the kind of devastation that inspired 19th century conservationists. What hit me, though, was the resilience of nature and how 

far the river corridor had come in restoring itself, thanks to those 

who had the foresight to protect it. 

When I became President and CEO of American Rivers, I saw an 

opportunity to connect people to nature through rivers. We explored, settled and built America by river. Rivers are relevant to 

things that every American cares about: clean drinking water, 

health and safety, prosperity and a high quality of life. Most important, rivers are resilient and with a little help, like the St. Croix, 

they can recover and be valuable assets, the centerpiece of a vibrant community. 

Among many river restoration projects that were undertaken 

during my tenure, one that stands out was a creative approach to 

improving conditions on the Penobscot River in Maine. A collaboVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:21 Apr 10, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\23820.TXT VERN
30 

rative effort between a power company, State and Federal agencies, 

tribes, fishermen and conservationists succeeded in maintaining all 

of the project’s hydropower generating capacity while removing two 

dams to open nearly a thousand miles of historic river habitat for 

endangered Atlantic salmon. 

To be asked by President Obama and Secretary Salazar to oversee the conservation of this Nation’s wildlife, natural and cultural 

resources, parks and refuges is the greatest honor of my long career. If confirmed, I will approach my responsibilities with deep humility and a commitment to work closely with the members of this 

committee, the fine staff of the National Park Service, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service and with the many stakeholders who are affected 

by the Service’s programs. 

I will seek balanced approaches that take into account the needs 

of all stakeholders. I believe the best way to achieve lasting conservation solutions is through a collaborative process. I look forward to promoting the many vehicles for partnership that have 

been developed to implement our Nation’s conservation laws. 

I will reach out proactively, especially to those whose livelihoods 

are at stake, and listen carefully to their concerns and ideas. I will 

aim for clear policy guidance based on the best science. I will commit to fully transparent decisionmaking. 

Most fundamentally, I believe that conservation is a widely held 

American value, grounded in two quintessentially American principles, being a good steward and being a good neighbor. The Nebraska farmers I knew growing up worked hard to protect their soil 

and water and when a neighbor needed help, everyone pitched in. 

In closing, I would be greatly honored to serve as the Assistant 

Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. I believe wholeheartedly 

in the missions of the National Park Service and the Fish and 

Wildlife Service. If confirmed, I will do my best to provide the leadership, secure the resources, engage the stakeholders and together, 

with the dedicated men and women of these two Services, make 

measurable progress against the great conservation challenges of 

our time. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wodder follows:] 

31 


23820.017

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REBECCA WODDER 

NOMINEE FOR 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS 

BEFORE THE 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

Thank you, Chairman Boxer, Senator Inhofe, and Members of the Committee. I am deeply 

honored to be here with you today as President Obama's nominee for Assistant Secretary for 

Fish and Wildlife and Parks. 

I am joined here today by my husband, James Van Erden, and one of our two daughters, Jayme. 

Our younger daughter, Jennifer, cannot be here because she is teaching English in a remote 

village in Panama, as a Peace Corps volunteer. I am deeply grateful for their love and support. 

Background 

I would like to begin with a short, personal introduction that helps to explain my background and 

why I am here today. I'm from a Midwest fanning family, born and raised in Nebraska. My 

parents grew up during the Depression and my mother's family lost their farm. They fought 

plagues of grasshoppers and the Dust Bowl, planting windbreaks and hauling water to keep the 

trees alive. 

Hardships had eased a bit by the time I was born in the early 50's, but I learned the value of hard 

work early on and never took any good fortune for granted. I spent the weekends and summers 

of my youth on my grandparents' farms, helping with chores and developing my love of 

barnyards, farm animals and endless fields of com. Those windbreaks planted during the Dust 

Bowl were some of my favorite places to hide in the hot Nebraska summers. 

My father enlisted in the Army at the start of World War II. When he came back from the war, 

he finished his education on the GI Bill and became a teacher. He taught at every level from a 

one-room schoolhouse on the prairie to the University of Nebraska. My mother also taught 

school. Public service and education were very important values in my family, and I have spent 

most of my career working for public interest conservation organizations. 

My lifelong commitment to conservation was awakened by an experience in the spring of 1970. 

As a senior in high school, my chemistry teacher tapped me to organize activities for something 

new called Earth Day. Inspired and eager to play a role in cleaning up polluted rivers, I went on 

to get two undergraduate degrees from the University of Kansas, in Biology and Environmental 

Studies; and two Master of Science degrees from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, in 

Landscape Architecture and Water Resources Management. 
32 


23820.018

While studying at Wisconsin, I designed and led the first visitor study of the Lower St. Croix 

Scenic River. I spent an entire summer exploring the river, talking to power boaters and 

paddlers, anglers and campers about their recreational experiences and how to minimize conflicts 

with other users. A lasting memory from that time is discovering a cache of sepia-toned, turn-ofthe-century photographs of the St. Croix. On both sides of the river, as far as the eye could see, 

the land was completely cutover, a moonscape, and the river itself was choked with logs. It was 

that kind of devastation that inspired 19'h century conservationists. What hit me, though, was the 

resilience of nature and how far the river corridor had come in restoring itself, thanks to those 

who had the foresight to protect it. 

The next turning point came while working as a research assistant to a University of Wisconsin 

professor who was writing a book on the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. I was sent to Washington, 

D.C. to interview Senator Gaylord Nelson for the book, and was offered a job as his Legislative 

Aide on Environment and Energy. This was a great place to start a conservation career in 

national public policy. My years as a staffer to Senator Nelson taught me many things, among 

them, that conservation is not a partisan issue, that conservationists should reach out and engage 

all Americans, and that we must commit to this effort for the long haul. He liked to point out 

that "economy" and "ecology" have the same Greek root, ecos, which means "house" and that 

taking care of the planet is essential to both a strong economy and healthy ecosystems. 

After the 1980 elections, I went to work for The Wilderness Society. I directed the Alaska 

program for three years and spent time in many parts of the state, including a memorable three 

week canoe trip on the Kobuk River which runs along the south flank of the Brooks Range. My 

time in Alaska imprinted me with a love of wilderness and wildlife, and gave me a much fuller 

appreciation for the majesty of America's natural resources. 

When I was recruited to be President and CEO of American Rivers, in 1995, I saw an 

opportunity to connect people to nature. Every community in America can trace its' story to a 

river. We explored, settled and built America by river. Rivers are relevant to things every 

American cares about- clean drinking water, health and safety, prosperity, and a high quality of 

life. Most important, rivers are resilient and with a little help, like the St. Croix, they can recover 

and be valuable assets, the centerpiece of a vibrant community. Sengalese poet and naturalist, 

Baba Dioum, says, "In the end, we will protect only what we love." It seemed to me that rivers 

are a perfect medium for Americans to discover their love of the great outdoors. 

Collaborative and Constructive Problem-solving 

To be asked by President Obama and Secretary Salazar to oversee the conservation of this 

Nation's wildlife, natural and cultural resources, and parks and refuges is the greatest honor of 

my long career. If confirmed by the Senate to the position of Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks, I will approach my responsibilities with deep humility and a commitment to 
33 


23820.019

work collaboratively with you, the fine staff of the National Park Service and the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and with the many stakeholders who are affected by the Services' programs. 

The conservation challenges of the 21" century loom large, alongside many other key issues 

affecting the wellbeing of Americans. I believe solutions to our conservation challenges can also 

contribute to a sound economy and a healthy, safe and thriving future for our Nation. I have seen 

this in action in many places across America. In Harmony Junction, Pennsylvania, the removal 

of an old dam to restore fish and wildlife habitat also solved serious flooding problems and 

created a recreational resource that supports the community's economy and quality of life. 

In presenting my qualifications to you, I would like to highlight five key attributes that I bring to 

this assigmnent: 

First, I am an experienced chief executive officer, having successfully led American Rivers for 

16 years of substantial growth and accomplishment. 

Second, I have 20 years of training and experience in developing and implementing strategic 

plans. When obstacles are many and resources few, having a good strategy is an absolute 

necessity. 

Third, I am a good listener and am open and interested in different points of view. 

Fourth, I am a collaborative, constructive and patient problem-solver. 

I have led many effective public outreach and involvement efforts, including serving for several 

years as Conservation Chair for the National Council of the Lewis & Clark Bicentennial and 

partnering with federal, state, local, and tribal governments, as well as grassroots organizations 

and corporations to engage the public in this coast-to-coast commemoration. 

Among many river restoration projects that were undertaken during my tenure, one that reflects 

these characteristics is a creative approach to improving conditions on the Penobscot River in 

Maine. A collaborative effort between a power company, tribal, state and federal governments, 

angler organizations and conservation groups succeeded in maintaining all of the hydropower 

generating capacity in the project area, while removing two dams to open nearly 1,000 miles of 

historic river habitat for endangered Atlantic salmon. 

The experience I would bring to this position includes three decades working with federal 

policies and programs related to natural resource management, fish and wildlife protection, and 

land and water conservation. As President of the nation's pre-eminent river conservation 

organization, I have had the privilege of working with hundreds of grassroots groups, local, state, 

federal and tribal governments, and many different sectors of business and industry, to develop 

solutions to complex problems with multiple stakeholders. During my tenure, American Rivers 

played a significant role in adding more than 100 rivers to National Wild and Scenic River 

System; restoring thousands of miles of rivers; demonstrating natural or nature-mimicking 
34 


23820.020

infrastructure solutions to water quality and supply problems in dozens of cities across America; 

and working with partners to find consensus solutions to conflicts between fish, water, and 

energy needs in the Pacific Northwest. 

Having spent 30 years in the public interest sector, I share with each of you a deep commitment 

to public service and, if confirmed, I will approach my responsibilities with humility and 

dedication. I will aim for balanced solutions that take the needs of all stakeholders into account. 

I believe that the best way to achieve lasting conservation solutions is through a collaborative 

process and I look forward to promoting the many vehicles for partnership that have been 

developed to implement the Endangered Species Act and other key laws and Congressional 

mandates. I will reach out proactively, especially to those whose livelihoods are at stake, and 

listen carefully to their concerns and ideas. I will ask my colleagues for robust analyses of all 

alternatives and aim for clear policy guidance based on the best science. And, I will commit to 

fully transparent decision-making. 

Most fundamentally, I believe that conservation is a widely-held American value, grounded in 

two quintessentially American principles - being a good steward and being a good neighbor. 

The Nebraska farmers I knew growing up worked hard to protect their soil and water year after 

year, so that their sons and daughters could make a good living. And, when a neighbor needed 

help, everyone pitched in. 

These principles are part of President Obama' s 21st century conservation initiative, America's 

Great Outdoors. Built on a strong bi-partisan foundation that goes back 1 00 years to the 

conservation legacy of President Theodore Roosevelt, the fact that more than 10,000 Americans 

took time to participate in more than 50 listening sessions across the nation last summer suggests 

a strong base of interest to build on today. Many compelling goals were raised and discussed at 

these public events and they provide a unique opportunity for conservation progress that deeply 

interests me, should I be confirmed. 

For example, the idea of empowering communities to connect with America's great outdoors 

through their rivers and other waterways is a goal that is near and dear to my heart. I have seen 

this work first hand in places like Columbia, South Carolina, where the Congaree River Blueway 

connects an urban community to Congaree National Park and underserved youth to the outdoors. 

I am also eager to learn about and contribute to the idea of catalyzing large-scale land 

conservation partnership projects through economic incentives and technical assistance. Large 

landscapes offer opportunity to improve both the productivity and environmental performance of 

industries that provide food, energy, and material goods and the natural systems that provide 

clean air and water, productive soils, flood protection and natural beauty that sustains our spirit. 

Conclusion 
35 


23820.021

In closing, I would be greatly honored to serve as the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife 

and Parks. I feel a strong connection to the American landscape and a deep responsibility to 

future generations of Americans. I believe wholeheartedly in the missions of the National Park 

Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Should I be confirmed by the Senate, I will do my 

best to provide the leadership, secure the resources, engage the stakeholders, and together with 

the dedicated men and women of these two Services, make measurable progress against the great 

conservation challenges of our time. 
36 


23820.022

Environment and Public Works Committee Hearing 

July 19, 2011 

Follow-Up Questions for Written Submission 

Questions for Wodder 

Questions from: 

Senator Barbara Boxer 

Scientific Integrity 

I. Ms. Wodder, I believe a commitment to scientific integrity is critical to successfully 

carrying out the responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 

President Obarna and Secretary Salazar have both committed to a policy of scientific 

integrity at the Interior Department. 

What role do you believe science should play in the work of the Department of the 

Interior, and in particular, the Fish and Wildlife Service? 

Response: 1 agree that a commitment to scientific integrity is critical to carrying 

out the responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks. If 

confirmed to this position, I will share the commitment of President Obama and 

Secretary Salazar to uphold the policy of scientific integrity at the Department of 

the Interior. 

The Department's managers must apply strong science to all its natural resource 

obligations. The Congress and public stakeholders demand that the Department's 

natural and cultural resource decisions are based in science and that they can be 

supported by the most up-to-date scientific understanding about the best use and 

conservation of these resources. 

Because science is investigative, not conclusive, it does not represent policy, but 

informs policy. It supplies information gathered and evaluated through a process 

that is designed to remove as much manager bias as possible from its outcome. 

Therefore, it not only supplies managers with valuable information, but it also 

helps instill greater confidence in the Department's constituents, who depend 

upon or benefit from the natural resource decisions made by the Department and 

its Bureaus. I support the foundational role for science in the work of the 

Department and the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service. 

If confirmed, how do you intend to fulfill the President's commitment to scientific 

integrity in your role as Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks? 
37 


23820.023

Response: If continued, I will uphold the principles of Scientific Integrity in 

Secretarial Order 3305, Ensuring Scientific Integrity within the Department of the 

Interior. I will work with the Department's very strong team of scientists to 

strengthen and improve the implementation of the Scientific Integrity Policy, 

established by the Secretary in February of this year, as necessary. I will also 

work with colleagues in the Office of the Secretary to identify and develop formal 

and informal training opportunities to ensure that the Department's scientists are 

able to learn about and apply the best available science in the range of natural 

resources for which they are responsible within their Bureaus and work with the 

Department's science team, Science Integrity Officer, Bureau Science Integrity 

Officers, and scientists to (I) expand capacities to acquire, apply, and 

communicate scientific information, (2) promote active involvement of the 

Department and its employees in the larger scientific community, (3) strengthen 

partnerships between the Service and other scientific organizations, and (4) 

support the recruitment and training of the next generation of scientists within the 

Department. I will also help sustain the strong peer review process within the 

Department and ensure effective science coordination among Bureaus and 

between the Department and other federal agencies, states, tribes, non-profit 

organizations, and scholarly institutions. 

Endangered Species Act 

2. Ms. Wodder, the ESA's decades-long track record of success is built on the use of the 

best available science. It is important that the Assistant Secretary be committed to 

following and upholding this landmark law and using the best science in all decisionmaking. 

Do you believe upholding the ESA is important, and if confirmed, will you commit to 

implement the law based on the best available science? 

Response: By enacting the Endangered Species Act, Congress made the 

prevention of species extinction a national priority. I believe the record is clear 

that the law has saved many species from extinction and has promoted a more 

sustainable management of our nation's vital natural resources. I believe 

upholding the ESA is important, and if confirmed, I will commit to implement the 

law based on the best available science. 

California Bay-Delta 

3. Ms. Wodder, the California Bay-Delta is the largest estuary on the West Coast, providing 

habitat to an array of species. The Delta is also critical for supplying water to much of the 

State. The State of California, water users, environmental interests, and the Federal 

agencies have been working toward developing a plan for restoration of the Delta that 

achieves the co-equal goals of protecting this critical ecosystem and improving water 

supply reliability. 
38 


23820.024

Will you commit, if confmned, to make restoration of the California Bay-Delta a top 

priority and to work collaboratively with state of California and California stakeholders 

s th~y develop a solution to the issues facing the Delta? 

Response: If confirmed, yes, I will commit to making California Bay-Delta 

restoration issues a top priority. 
39 


23820.025

Senator Tom Udal\ 

If you are confinned as Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, the proposed Middle 

Rio Grande National Wildlife Refuge in Albuquerque, including the protection of the 570 acre 

Price's Dairy property, will be within your purview. I look forward to working with you on it, as 

the proposed refuge provides a significant opportunity to protect one of the last remaining 

undeveloped properties along the Rio Grande in Albuquerque, restore bosque and silvery 

minnow habitat, and provide educational opportunities to nearby residents, students and visitors. 

The proposed Middle Rio Grande NWR, now in the fmal stages of internal planning at the US 

Fish and Wildlife Service is the USFWS Regional Director's top priority, and is broadly 

supported by local residents and the other members of the New Mexico Congressional 

delegation. 

The Price's Dairy landowner has provided a reasonable but limited time frame for completing 

the property's protection. Additionally, a significant expression of public support has come from 

Bernalillo County, whose County Commission on September 28, 20 I 0, approved an allocation of 

$5 million dollars from its open space fund for the pennanent protection of the Price's Dairy 

property. This is a very significant step forward and provides much-needed local match and 

support to the USFWS efforts to establish the new refuge. However, this commitment expires on 

September 28, 2012 unless federal funds are in place. 

1. If confinned, wili you work to complete all the necessary evaluation and public outreach 

to ensure that the Middle Rio Grande NWR moves forward and is approved in a way that 

recognizes these critical timing and funding issues? 

Response: The FWS implements a land acquisition planning process for the 

establishment of new refuges and the expansion of existing refuges that includes a 

comprehensive public involvement process as described in policy. In the case of 

the proposed Middle Rio Grande NWR, I am told that the FWSis currently in the 

process of soliciting public comments on its draft Land Protection Plan and the 

associated National Environmental Policy Act document. I am infonned that the 

process is currently on track for final approval of the LPP by the Director before 

the end of this calendar year. It is after this approval that the FWS is able to seek 

funding to acquire property that will officially establish the refuge. If confinned, 

I will work with the FWS to ensure that this process stays on track and would be 

happy to meet with you to discuss the issues involved, including the funding 

commitment from Bernalillo County. 

2. If confinned, will you work with the President to help ensure that adequate funding for 

acquisition of lands for the Middle Rio Grande NWR is included in his next budget? 

Response: I am mindful of the current economic situation this country faces and 

respectful of the roles of the President and the Congress in the Federal budget 

process. If confirmed, and if the administrative process for creating the refuge is 

complete, I will work with the FWS to identify funding for this project. 
40 


23820.026

Senator Jeff Merkley 

I have heard from many of my constituents regarding your previous position with American 

Rivers, and specifically the position you and your organization took With respect to the removal 

of four dams on the lower Snake River. 

I have heard from rural electric co-ops, a number of businesses and rural community groups who 

are concerned that removal of these dams will economically impact surrounding communities 

already hard hit in the recession, and that it will remove a source of clean energy. 

I have also heard from conservation groups who support removal of these dams due to their 

concern over salmon populations, and they argue that thriving salmon populations would also 

bring new jobs to the region. 

I. What is your response to these concerns? 

Response: If confirmed, I will voluntarily recuse myself from participating in any 

Interior Department decisions regarding the Columbia-Snake River System for 

the full time I serve as Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. 

I will abide by the terms of my ethics agreement, including the applicable ethics 

rules and the Administration's ethics pledge, and I will regularly seek the 

assistance and guidance of the Department's Ethics Office. I have consulted with 

the Department's Ethics Office and understand that, as provided by the terms of 

my ethics agreement and the Administration's ethics pledge, I will not participate 

for two years in any particular matters involving specific parties in which 

American Rivers is a party or represents a party. It is important to note that, 

should I be confirmed as Assistant Secretary, federal management of the lower 

Snake River dams would not fall under my purview. 

2. How do you see your role as Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks for the 

Department of Interior on this issue? 

Response: If confirmed, I will voluntarily recuse myself from participating in any 

Interior Department decisions regarding the Columbia-Snake River System for 

the full time I serve as Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. 

I will abide by the terms of my ethics agreement, including the applicable ethics 

rules and the Administration's ethics pledge, and I will regularly seek the 

assistance and guidance of the Department's Ethics Office. I have consulted with 

the Department's Ethics Office and understand that, as provided by the terms of 

my ethics agreement and the Administration's ethics pledge, I will not participate 

for two years in any particular matters involving specific parties in which 

American Rivers is a party or represents a party. It is important to note that, 

should I be confirmed as Assistant Secretary, federal management of the lower 

Snake River dams would not fall under my purview. 
41 


23820.027

3. How would you balance the concerns of various stakeholders in your new position if you 

were confirmed as Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks for the Department of 

the Interior? 

Response: If confirmed, I will voluntarily recuse myself from participating in any 

Interior Department decisions regarding the Columbia-Snake River System for 

the full time I serve as Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. 

I will abide by the terms of my ethics agreement, including the applicable ethics 

rules and the Administration's ethics pledge, and I Vlill regularly seek the 

assistance and guidance of the Department's Ethics Office. I have consulted with 

the Department's Ethics Office and understand that, as provided by the terms of 

my ethics agreement and the Administration's ethics pledge, I will not participate 

·for two years in any particular matters involving specific parties in which 

American Rivers is a party or represents a party. It is important to note that, 

should I be confirmed as Assistant Secretary, federal management of the lower 

Snake River dams would not fall under my purview. 

In general, my approach to resolving controversial natural resource issues would 

be to reach out proactively, especially to those whose livelihoods are at stake, and 

listen carefully to their concerns and ideas. I would seek balanced approaches 

that take the needs of all stakeholders into account. I believe that lasting 

conservation solutions are best achieved through an open and transparent 

collaborative process that includes a robust analysis of all alternatives. 

4. On this and other controversial natural resource issues, how would you, as Assistant 

Secretary, reach out to stakeholders to ensure that all voices and concerns are heard? 

Response: In general, my approach to resolving controversial natural resource 

issues would be to reach out proactively, especially to those whose livelihoods are 

at stake, and listen carefully to their concerns and ideas. I would seek balanced 

approaches that take the needs of all stakeholders into account. I believe that 

lasting conservation solutions are best achieved through an open and transparent 

collaborative process that includes a robust analysis of all alternatives. 
42 


23820.028

Senator James M. Inhofe 

I. Will you treat requests from minority parties in Congress with the same urgency and 

respect as majority party requests? 

Response: If confirmed, I commit to working respectfully and constructively with 

Members of Congress regardless of party affiliation. 

2. Regarding the Endangered Species Act (ESA): 

a. Do you believe the Endangered Species Act, in its current form, works effectively 

to recover species? 

Response: I believe that the ESA has worked effectively to prevent a 

many species from going extinct and recovering others to the point where 

they no longer need ESA protection. 

With that said, I know that the FWS is working to improve the 

implementation to make it less complex, less contentious, and more 

effective. The FWS is working to improve the implementation of the ESA 

by considering appropriate changes to the practices, guidance, policies, or 

regulations to enhance conservation of listed species. 

For example, I understand that the FWS and National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) are looking for ways to update ESA implementation 

based on experiences gained to add clarity to the process for designating 

critical habitat. This will be part of a public process Another example 

relates to improving tools for landowners who take actions to conserve 

species, and providing them with regulatory certainty as a result of those 

actions. If confirmed, I commit to working within the Administration to 

improve implementation of the ESA. 

b. Do you believe ESA needs to be modernized? If so, which parts specifically? 

Response: As mentioned above, the Department, through the FWS, is 

working to improve the implementation of the Act to make it less 

complex, less contentious, and more effective The Department intends to 

improve the efficiency and effectiveness of designation of critical habitat, 

improve the FWS's landowner tools to provide certainty, and expand 

opportunities for state and public engagement and participation. If 

confirmed, I would fully support these efforts and pursue them as a top 

priority. 

c. Do you believe the delisting saga surrounding gray wolves in the Northern Rocky 

Mountains and the Western Great Lakes has highlighted severe ESA deficiencies 

to actually delist species? 
43 


23820.029

Response: I do not believe that the wolf delisting highlights inherent 

deficiencies in the ESA. Perhaps more than any other listed species, 

people have strong emotions regarding the gray wolf and that means that 

everything the FWS does with this species is examined very closely. 

While the FWS has tried to delist this species in the Northern Rocky 

Mountains and the western Great Lakes on multiple occasions, I 

understand that the fundamental objective of the ESA has been achievedgray wolves are now recovered in the Great Lakes and Northern Rocky 

Mountains. I also understand that the FWS bas proposed a rule to delist 

wolves in the Great Lakes and has agreed in principle on a management 

plan that would lead to delisting wolves in Wyoming. If I am confirmed, I 

will ensure that the FWS will use the best scientific and commercial 

information available in making determinations about the listing status of 

all species. 

d. Do you support a legislative solution that would delist wolves throughout their 

range? 

Response: The ESA provides a critical safety net for America's native fish, 

wildlife and plants. It is my understanding that the Administration 

generally does not support legislative action delisting ESA protected 

species as it may potentially undermine the scientific integrity of the 

Endangered Species Act and I concur with this position. It is my 

understanding that the Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf delisting was 

a unique situation given its recovered status, history of detailed 

administrative reviews, and related litigation. 

e. When species are listed under ESA, should specific benchmarks be set to 

determine when species have recovered? Should these benchmarks trigger an 

actual delisting? 

Response: The ESA requires the FWS to develop and implement recovery 

plans for the conservation and survival of the species. My understanding 

is that these recovery plans include objective, measurable criteria which, 

when met, would result in a review of the status of the species. 

f. Do you believe litigation abuses that are prevalent under ESA should be modified 

to ensure taxpayer funded attorney's fees are directed to species conservation as 

opposed to filling the coffers of legal firms and funding environmental NGOs? 

Response: I am aware that there is pending legislation in the House and 

Senate regarding this issue. I am not yet familiar enough with this issue to 

have formed an opinion. If confirmed, I can assure you that I will 

examine this issue further and familiarize rnyselfwith these various 

legislative proposals. 
44 


23820.030

g. Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act suggests states have the authority to take 

over administration ofESA. What is your interpretation of this section? Would 

you support the ability of states to take on a greater role in ESA administration? 

Response: Section 6 of the Act provides for the cooperation with States. 

am pleased that the FWS is fully committed to enhancing State 

involvement. The FWS and the Association ofFish and Wildlife 

Agencies have established a State/Federal Joint Task Force on ESA policy 

to provide better opportunities for State involvement. Furthermore, I 

understand that FWS Director Dan Ashe recently sent a memorandum to 

all Service Regional Directors, reaffll'll1ing the FWS's commitment to a 

1994 FWSINMFS policy regarding cooperation with the States in ESA 

activities. 

h. Arrangements such as Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances, 

lauded by the Fish & Wildlife Service and other Conservation NGOs, have been 

shown to effectively protect listed species without stripping private property 

owners of land values or shutting down development. In the past, private 

landowners have invested significant monies to implement these collaborative 

solutions only later to be told by FWS that a listing would still occur. Would you 

commit to looking for administrative solutions to provide greater certainty in the 

use of these agreements? Would FWS signing on to the conservation agreements 

be a solution or entering into an agreement that it meets all PECE (Policy of 

Evaluation for Conservation Efforts) elements? 

Response: I understand that the FWS fully supports the agreements 

mentioned to conserve candidate species. If confirmed, 1 will commit to 

looking for ways to make these administrative tools more effective in 

engaging private landowners in the conservation of at risk species. 

i. Would you agree that the listing of a species as endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act is an admission by the FWS of its failure to protect the species using 

the range of other productive tools available to the agency, such as Resources 

Management Plans, Candidate Conservation Agreements, and Candidate 

Conservation Agreements with Assurances? 

Response: Ordinarily, States possess primary authority and responsibility 

for protection and management of fish, wildlife, and plants and their 

habitats in the U.S. In the spirit of positive federal-state relationships, if 

confirmed, I would strongly support working with State agencies and 

other partners to stabilize and improve the condition of species that may 

warrant listing. 

j. Would you agree that before the agency proposes to list a species as endangered, 

every reasonable effort should be made by the agency to work with landowners, 
45 


23820.031

farmers, cattlemen, industry, local governments and conservation organizations, 

and other elements of the private sector in the affected region to craft effective 

measures using RMPs, CCAs, and CCAAs that protect the species in order to 

avoid a listing? 

Response: As stated above, I understand the FWS is committed to working 

with its partners to stabilize and improve the condition of these species. 

The Service supports efforts that provide assurances to landowners who 

take steps to protect species, including conservation agreements that are 

sufficient to preclude the need for listing, when possible. If confinned, l 

would share that commitment and support those efforts. 

k. Do you agree that before listing a species, RMPs, CCAs, and CCAAs that are 

entered into must be given a fair opportunity to deliver the conservation benefits 

they were designed to achieve so that a listing can be avoided altogether? 

Response: I strongly support early use of these voluntary conservation 

agreements, but I understand that the Act requires the FWS to make listing 

determinations in a timely manner using the infonnation that is available 

at that time. In these cases, having conservation agreements in place 

before listing continues to be beneficial because the landowners can be 

assured that they can continue to manage their lands in accordance with 

the agreement even if the species should become listed in the future. 

I. Would you agree that the proposed listing of the Sand Dune Lizard was premature 

in that it did not allow the CCAs and CCAAs that have been entered into with the 

private sector specifically to conserve that species sufficient time to provide the 

conservation results that would obviate a listing in that case? 

Response: While I am not familiar with the details of the proposed listing 

of the sand dune lizard, I am infonned that it was a high priority candidate 

for listing for nearly a decade before the FWS published its listing 

proposal. While the Act does not allow the FWS to postpone listing 

detenninations indefinitely, it is my understanding that the CCAs and 

CCAAs that have been developed will help to both conserve the species 

and provide certainty to participating landowners in the event that the 

lizard is ultimately listed. 

3. As you are aware, there are a number of efforts underway on both the state and national 

levels to impose restrictions on the utilization of traditional ammunition and fishing 

tackle by sportsmen and recreational shooters. I believe that many of these proposed 

restrictions lack a demonstrated need supported by science while ignoring the 

extraordinary contributions that sportsmen and the hunting and fishing industries make to 

conservation through excise taxes, license sales, donations, and volunteer efforts. In 

addition, I am very concerned about how arbitrary restrictions in this area will be 

detrimental to our efforts to recruit and retain new hunters, shooters, and fishermen due tc 
46 


23820.032

the prohibitive increases in costs of participation that will result. As Assistant Secretary, 

how would you ensure that these concerns are addressed on lands and waters 

administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service? As 

Assistant Secretary would you pledge to continue to permit the use of traditional 

ammunition and fishing tackle (where hunting and fishing are permitted) on National 

Wildlife Refuges, National Parks, Historical Parks, National Monuments, National Parks, 

National Battlefields, National Preserves, National Recreation Areas, National Seashores, 

Parkways, lakeshores, and reserves? 

Response: Hunters and anglers have indeed made extraordinary contributions to 

the conservation of the nation's fish and wildlife, through the use of revenues and 

license fees to acquire and manage habitat valuable for game and non-game 

species alike. Moreover, they have been willing to adjust their own practices 

when necessary to address problems such as lead poisoning of waterfowl and bald 

eagles from the use of traditional lead shot in waterfowl hunting. This year marks 

the 20th anniversary of the nationwide phase-in of the requirement to use nontoxic shot in the hunting of migratory waterfowl, coots, and certain other birds. 

Thanks in part to_ that successful transition, and the cooperation of waterfowl 

hunters, both waterfowl populations and hunter harvest levels have been 

sustained, while the once endangered bald eagle has fully recovered. If confirmed 

as Assistant Secretary, I will work with both the Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

National Park Service to ensure that their decisions regarding hunting and fishing 

on lands under their jurisdiction are based on strong science. 

4. What is your position on the use of hunters' as agents for the lethal culling of excess deer 

and elk in national parks including but not limited to Rocky Mountain National Park, 

Theodore Roosevelt National Park, and Valley Forge National Historical Park? 

Response: If confirmed, I would support the use of skilled volunteers, including 

hunters, where appropriate and compatible with existing law, regulations, and 

National Park Service policy. 

I am told that Park units that are evaluating and addressing overabundant ungulate 

populations are evaluating the use of skilled volunteers in the range of alternatives 

in management planning. The use of skilled volunteers has been implemented on 

a short-term basis at Rocky Mountain National Park. In addition, Theodore 

Roosevelt National Park successfully implemented its first year of elk reduction 

in 2010 with assistance froml99 skilled volunteers from 19 states. While this 

model works well in some locations, it is not a one size fits all solution. For 

instance, Valley Forge deer reduction efforts were contracted through the Animal 

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) because of the close proximity to an 

urban area. 

I have also been informed that the NPS is evaluating a Service-wide approach to 

managing overabundant wildlife, which includes both native and exotics species, 

such as deer, elk, feral pigs, etc. and hopes to have that evaluation completed by 
47 


23820.033

early 2012. The use of skilled volunteers is one tool available to parks for 

managing overabundant wildlife that welcomes and utilizes the experience and 

abilities of volunteers. 

5. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) is the 

international treaty that governs trade in endangered species. Currently there are two 

specific issues where the U.S. is out of step with the rest of the international community. 

a The countries who are party to CITES require a non-detriment finding for the 

trade in endangered species. The US currently has a further onerous enhancement 

finding on top of CITES requirements that is necessary to allow the import of 

endangered species into the U.S. Would you support legislative changes to ESA 

in order to bring U.S. law in harmony with CITES? 

Response: My understanding of CITES is that the enhancement 

requirement of the Endangered Species Act is not out of step with the rest 

of the international community. I am told that all 175 countries that are 

currently Parties to CITES have agreed to its terms, and CITES itself, in 

Article XIV, provides that Parties may enact stricter domestic measures 

regarding the conditions for trade, taking, possession, or transport of 

specimens of species listed under CITES, up to and including a complete 

prohibition on such activities. 

I am also told that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) constitutes a stricter 

domestic measure, its existence and provisions are fully consistent with 

CITES, and the United States is not the only country with such stricter 

domestic measures. There is also flexibility in the ESA for relaxing the 

permitting requirements for some CITES-listed species. The requirement 

for an enhancement finding is generally limited to species that are under a 

more immediate threat of extinction and therefore in need of active 

measures to assist in their recovery. 

I understand that the Department would not support the amendment of the 

ESA to weaken protections for species that are in the greatest need of 

actions to prevent their extinction, and that the reason for this is the 

flexibility that is built into the ESA, and because the permitting of U.S. 

imports can be used to provide incentives to assist in species' recovery. If 

confirmed, I would support that position. 

b. The current definition of a "hunting trophy" by CITES allows for all reasonable 

products from a harvested trophy to be traded internationally, but the US has a 

more restrictive definition that prevents the trade, characterizing items as 

"worked." Would you support the international definition of hunting trophies? 

Response: Although I am not yet fully informed on this issue, I have been 

told that the Fish and Wildlife Service developed a definition of "sport-
48 


23820.034

hunted trophy" in its CITES-implementing regulations prior to the 

adoption of a definition by the CITES Parties. The Service actively 

participated in the negotiations on this issue at the I 5th Meeting of the 

CITES Conference of the Parties (CoP IS) and did not oppose the 

definition that the CITES Parties agreed to at that meeting. The Service is 

currently in the process of revising its CITES-implementing regulations to 

incorporate changes agreed to at CoP14 and CoP IS, including changes 

relating to the definition of"hunting trophy." I understand that the Service 

intends to have a proposed rule published in the Federal Register within 

the next few months which will be made available to the public for review 

and comment. 

6. What is your position on climate change? Do you agree with environmental groups 

utilizing ESA to promote reductions in greenhouse gases? 

Response: Climate change is significantly affecting, and will increasingly affect, 

the resources for which the FWS and NPS are authorized and obligated by statute 

to conserve. If confirmed, I will ensure that the FWS and NPS continue to 

faithfully and respectfully implement the Jaw; acquire and apply the best available 

science; and takes actions that reflect a commitment to transparency and 

accountability. 

Regarding use of the ESA to address climate change, I agree with Secretary 

Salazar, Deputy Secretary David Hayes, and the other nominees that have 

appeared before you that the Endangered Species Act was not intended to be used 

as a tool for regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. While I understand that the 

FWS is required to consider the effects of climate change in analyzing various 

alternative actions, it is not a mechanism that the FWS should or would use to 

regulate greenhouse gas emissions because it is not the responsible authority. 

7. EPA and the Services do not agree on fundamental scientific issues at the heart of 

pesticide consultations. Unable to resolve differences on critical issues, EPA 

Administrator Lisa Jackson and the Secretaries of the United States Department of 

Agriculture, Department oflnterior, and Department of Commerce recently asked the 

National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to 

provide guidance on six key scientific issues to overcome this impasse. How do you plan 

to work with your counterparts at EPA and National Marine Fisheries in the meantime to 

not only protect endangered species but ensure that American agriculture is not 

jeopardized? When writing biological opinions for pesticides, how will you ensure your 

agency receives information from relevant stakeholders such as the state agriculture 

departments and/or other non-federal experts in developing your conclusions? What 

value do you give to "on the ground" information that you can receive from those 

involved directly in the use of crop protection products? 

Response: I am not yet familiar with all the history, procedures, and challenges 

involved in ESA consultations with EPA on pesticide registration. However, if 
49 


23820.035

confirmed, I will work to see that these consultations are informed by the best 

scientific and commercial data available, give opportunities for stakeholders and 

experts to provide information to help the consultation process, and consider the 

effects of any protective measures on American agriculture. 

8. Your nominated position will require you to be willing to work closely with U.S. Anny 

Corps of Engineers staff to ensure that water resources studies and projects and other 

Corps priorities can advance under the appropriate policies with as few impediments as 

possible. The Interior Department and the Army Corps should work collaboratively to 

solve any issues that arise instead of creating a hindrance. If confirmed, how will you 

ensure that Army Corps studies and projects do not face unnecessarily burdensome 

delays? 

Response: I am aware that the Fish and Wildlife Service has a long-standing 

program that focuses on working with th.e Corps of Engineers on water resource 

studies and projects through shared responsibilities under the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act (FWCA). The FWCA gives the FWS the opportunity to 

provide an official statement on the impacts and/or benefits to fish and wildlife 

from proposed Federal water projects. It is a cooperative process wherein 

Congress sought to accommodate both economic development and the 

maintenance or restoration of productive habitats and environmental quality. The 

Corps and other Federal action agencies are to include justifiable measures for 

fish and wildlife conservation in their projects. There is a long history of working 

cooperatively to achieve these multiple ends. 

If confirmed, I am committed to continuing this practice by ensuring that the 

Service conducts its reviews in a timely manner consistent with statutory 

requirements under the FWCA and Clean Water Act and to seek the resources 

needed to accomplish this work. If confirmed, I will also encourage the 

Department to continue its efforts to facilitate permit review through interagency 

coordination and to reduce delays. 

9. I have concerns about American Rivers' policies and activities as it relates to the Anny 

Corps of Engineers. For example, I am concerned with the publication "A Citizen's 

Guide to the Corps of Engineers" which was released by American Rivers and the 

National Wildlife Federation last year. The guide provides, among other things, "a 

detailed overview of the Corps and of the laws, policies, and strategies that can be used to 

stop or improve destructive projects ... " What was your role in the conception and 

development of this guide? 

Response: I had no direct role in the conception or development of this guide. I 

supervised the senior staff member who supervised the staff member who worked 

with a partner organization on its development. 
50 


23820.036

10. American Rivers is a member of the Water Protection Network (WPN). The WPN's 

website lists projects that its "members are working to influence." One of those projects 

is very important to Oklahoma- the deepening of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River 

Navigation System. The website includes a fact sheet on the project that is extremely 

troubling to me. There are economic benefits associated with the project that were not 

captured in the Corps benefit cost ratio analysis. In addition, the project has 

environmental mitigation components that were developed in cooperation with the Fish 

and Wildlife Service. As Assistant Secretary, how will you ensure that these authorized 

Corps projects, such as this one, move forward once funding is provided? 

Response: In coordinating on Federal water projects, the Corps and the FWS 

have joint responsibilities under multiple authorities, including FWCA, 

Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act. I have been informed that the 

Service's engagement assists the Corps in designing viable projects that provide 

the intended economic benefits while conserving or improving fish and wildlife 

resources. The earlier the Service can engage, the more likely it is that the 

construction of Federal water projects that satisfy multiple objectives are 

facilitated. If confirmed, I will stress early engagement as a means of avoiding 

potential conflicts or delays before they affect project completion timelines. I will 

also seek to ensure that the relevant Fish and Wildlife Service programs are 

positioned so that this proactive work takes place. 

II. American Rivers has a history of filing litigation against Corps projects. 

a. How many lawsuits has American Rivers filed during your tenure as President? 

Response: As I stated during my confirmation hearing before the Senate 

Environment and Public Works Committee, it was my understanding that 

American Rivers was the plaintiff or co-plaintiff in 16 cases during my 

tenure. I have attached a spreadsheet provided by American Rivers that 

describes these cases. This spreadsheet also identifies cases in which 

American Rivers was a petitioner in Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC) proceedings, cases in which American Rivers 

submitted an amicus brief, and cases in which American Rivers intervened 

primarily on behalf of the Federal government as an intervenor defendant. 

Not all of these cases were brought against Corps projects. 

I believe strongly that a transparent collaborative approach to problemsolving and looking for ways to resolve environmental concerns while 

balancing the need for development is more productive than costly, 

contentious and time-consuming litigation-driven decision making. 

Consistent with that belief, shortly after my arrival at American Rivers, 

. the organization opened a dialogue with members of the hydropower 

industry, as well as federal agencies and other stakeholders, to facilitate 

collaboration and settlement. The result has been 160 settlements in 
51 


23820.037

which American Rivers was a signatory, advisor, or funder of grassroots 

partners. During that time, the organization also worked to negotiate new 

regulations for Federal Energy Regulatory Commission known as the 

Integrated Licensing Process, which set up new timetables, streamlined 

permitting, and supported better, more integrated decisions among the 

various agencies with statutory responsibility. 

b. Approximately what percentage of those lawsuits stopped a Corps project from 

being completed? 

Response: To the best of my knowledge, no Corps project was stopped 

from completion as consequence of these lawsuits. 

c. Do you think that this was an effective tactic to accomplish American Rivers' 

policy goals? If so, why? 

Response: As President and CEO of American Rivers, my role was to 

represent the mission of the organization to promote healthy rivers and 

clean water. As I have previously stated, my philosophy is to engage early 

in order to avoid potential conflicts or delays. I believe that litigation 

should only be used as a last resort if there is no other way to avert 

irreparable harm to rivers and clean water. 

12. An Assistant Secretary must appreciate and understand differing perspectives in order to 

make even-handed and well-reasoned policy decisions. If confirmed, how will you bring 

an objective and balanced approach to the position for which you are nominated? 

Response: Should I be confirmed, my approach to resolving controversial natural 

resource issues will be to reach out proactively, especially to those whose 

livelihoods are at stake, and listen carefully to their concerns and ideas. I will 

seek balanced approaches that take the needs of all stakeholders into account. I 

believe that lasting conservation solutions are best achieved through an open and 

transparent collaborative process that includes a robust analysis of all alternatives. 

13. My home state of Oklahoma and many other states, including Texas, have adopted water 

plans. The Department of Interior recently established a wildlife refuge within the 

footprint of a planned water supply project in Texas. This water supply project was not 

only documented in the State's Water Plan, but it was also vetted thoroughly in public 

meetings and public hearings. Still, Fish and Wildlife Service made a unilateral decision 

to designate a wildlife refuge within the footprint of the planned project, without any 

contact, coordination or consultation with state and local interests. How would your 

administration handle this issue differently? 

Response: I have been told that your specific question pertains to the Neches 

NWR, which was approved by the Service's Director on June 11, 2006. Although 

I am unfamiliar with the details of this particular situation, I am aware that in 
52 


23820.038

general the process for creating a new National Wildlife Refuge is a transparent 

process that involves a number of steps that can take years to complete and 

involves extensive study and public input. I support this transparent process, 

which seeks to fully engage the public. If confirmed, I will expect this public 

process to be followed for new refuges. Should I be confirmed, I would be happy 

to meet with you to discuss the specific issues you ask about in more detail. 

14. Do you believe that if an agency were to change the rights and responsibilities under a 

law, they should go through notice and comment rulemaking prior to making that 

decision? 

Response: While I am not an attorney and would have to rely on the 

Department's legal staff for technical application of the existing law to a 

particular set of facts, it is my view that federal agencies must faithfully and 

respectfully implement the statutes and regulations under which they operate and 

that all agency actions should reflect a commitment to transparency and 

accountability. 

IS. I understand that you are a strong supporter of greater federal control over water and you 

personally went so far as to speak last year at the press conference where Mr. Oberstar 

unveiled his version of the Clean Water Restoration Act. In spite of the Clean Water 

Restoration Act being resoundingly defeated last Congress, it appears that EPA is 

attempting to gain the jurisdiction that it would have received through that act through 

their new Draft Guidance document. I am extremely concerned about this course of 

action for a number of reasons. While I do not expect the President to nominate someone 

who shares my views on the limits of jurisdiction, I am concerned that you may not think 

any waters fall outside of the scope of Federal jurisdiction. Please tell me, in your 

opinion, should any water features not be federal? Please describe those features. 

Response: It is my understanding that the determination of whether or not a water 

feature falls under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act is a determination to be 

made by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency not the Department of the 

Interior. 

16. At our hearing you said "should I be confirmed, the Clean Water Act would be outside 

my jurisdiction. It would not be up to the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks to implement the Clean Water Act." As a Senior Official in the Obama 

Administration, however, you will play a critical role in the interagency review process, 

particularly through ESA Section 7 consultations. Please elaborate on your role in this 

process. 

Response: Under section 7 of the ESA, the FWS consults with federal agencies 

on proposed actions that may affect threatened and endangered species. The FWS 

uses section 7 as well as other programs authorized by the ESA to collaboratively 

solve conservation challenges related to threatened and endangered species. If 

confirmed, I will support the efforts of the Service and other federal agencies to 

carefully review the potential impacts of proposed actions early in the planning 
53 


23820.039

process, and to identify reasonable measures to avoid and minimize any negative 

impacts to imperiled species. 

17. The position of Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks for the Department of the Interior 

is influential as to oil and gas leasing and development of both federal and private lands, especially 

as issues relate to consultations under Section 7 of ESA, compliance for non-federal actions under 

I O(a) ofESA, and FWS comments in Environmental Impact Statements under NEP A. 

a. In your oral response on July 191h to my question regarding your statements on America's 

oil and gas industry, you stated,"/ had a job to do". To further clarify your views on 

America's oil and gas industry and hydraulic fracturing, please answer each of the 

following questions separately and directly. Did you make the following statements, yes or 

no? 

"Unless we stop the threat of rampant shale/racking, the drinking water for /7 

million people across the Northeast will be threatened by toxic pollution. We 

can't let natural gas companies fallen their profits by putting our precious clean 

water at risk. " 

"Fracking has a nasty track record of creating a toxic chemical soup that pollutes 

groundwater and streams, threatening public health and wildlife ... " 

Response: Yes. My comments while CEO of American Rivers referred to 

hydraulic fracturing activities, specifically the disposal of produced 

hydraulic fracturing fluids in Pennsylvania and New York. 

b. Merriam Webster defines rampant as, "marked by a menacing wildness, extravagance, or 

absence of restraint". Do you believe hydraulic fracturing, as is currently regulated in the 

United Slates, is "rampant" or is under the threat of becoming "rampant", yes or no? If 

yes, please explain. 

Response: Pennsylvania State University projects that more than 2,300 wells will 

be drilled in Pennsylvania in 2011, with the number of wells drilled increasing in 

subsequent years. Ultimately, industry estimates that more than 400,000 natural gas 

wells may be drilled throughout the Marcellus Shale in the coming decades. 

c. Do you believe "natural gas companies fatten their profits by pulling our precious clean 

water at risK', yes or no? If yes, please explain. 

Response: Many companies operate responsibly and take numerous precautions to 

avoid impacts to drinking water sources. However, there have been documented 

cases where a few companies have violated the law, including illegal dumping of 

wastewater from hydraulic fracturing. 

d. Do you believe "fracking has a nasty track record'', yes or no? If yes, please provide that 

track record. 
54 


23820.040

Response: While many companies operate responsibly, there have been many 

documented problems caused by accidental and intentional spills into surface waters 

and gas leaks into groundwater. A Duke University study published in May 2011 in 

the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences examined groundwater 

obtained from 68 wells in Pennsylvania and New York. Researchers found that 

groundwater near wells that have been hydraulically fractured contained, on 

average, methane concentrations 17 times higher than wells located more than I 

kilometer from hydraulically fractured natural gas wells. 

e. Do you believe hydraulic fracturing, as is currently regulated in the United States, threatens 

"public health and wildlifo", yes or no? If yes, please explain. 

Response: Hydraulic fracturing was exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act 

by the Energy Policy Act of2005. As I noted in response to a previous question 

while most companies operate responsibility, some are not as diligent about using 

best practices. Safe drinking water regulations are intended to set a minimum 

standard that will protect public health. 

f. Do you have reason to disagree with the statement of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, 

who two months ago before a House Committee said, "I'm not aware of any proven case 

where the fracking process itself has affected water", yes or no? If yes, what is the reason 

to disagree with that statement? 

Response: Like Administrator Jackson, I am not aware of any proven case where 

the Cracking process itself has affected water, although tbere are investigations 

ongoing. My understanding is that the EPA is undertaking a comprehensive study 

of the possible impacts of hydraulic fracturing on water sources. 

g. Do you support the statement of Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks Tom 

Strickland who in 2009 before the EPW Committee said, "It is the position of the 

Administration, and Secretary Salazar supports this position, as do I. that we should 

actively and aggressively develop our conventional resources"? 

Response: At the outset I note that the potential development of policies regarding 

hydraulic fracturing would fall within the primary auspices of the Assistant 

Secretary for Land and Minerals Management and the Bureau of Land 

Management, and not the position for which I have been nominated. Domestic 

energy development is a top priority of both President Obama and Secretary Salazar 

and, if confirmed, I would support the Administration's efforts in this regard. I 

believe that, in most cases, a safe and responsible approach to balancing energy and 

environmental needs can be found. 
55 


23820.041

Senator David Vitter 

I. During your nomination bearing you indicated that during your time at American Rivers 

(AR) there were only 13 lawsuits in which the organization was a party. This is clearly 

inaccurate. Please provide a list of all legal actions taken by AR, or which AR was a 

party to during your tenure. 

Response: As I stated during my confirmation bearing before this Committee, it 

is my understanding that American Rivers was the plaintiff or co-plaintiff in 16 

cases during my tenure. I have attached a spreadsheet provided by American 

Rivers that describes theses cases. This spreadsheet also identifies cases in which 

American Rivers was a petitioner in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC) proceedings, cases in which American Rivers submitted an amicus brief, 

and cases in which American Rivers intervened primarily on behalf of the Federal 

government as an intervenor defendant. 

I believe strongly that a transparent collaborative approach to problem-solving 

and looking for ways to resolve environmental concerns while balancing the need 

for development is more productive than costly, contentious and time-consuming 

litigation-driven decision making. 

Consistent with that belief, shortly after my arrival at American Rivers, the 

organization opened a dialogue with members of the hydropower industry, as well 

as federal agencies and other stakeholders, to facilitate collaboration and 

settlement. The result bas been 160 settlements in which American Rivers was a 

signatory, advisor, or funder of grassroots partners. During that time, American 

Rivers also worked to negotiate new regulations for Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission known as the Integrated Licensing Process, which set up new 

timetables, streamlined permitting, and supported better, more integrated 

decisions among the various agencies with statutory responsibility. 

2. Please provide a list of all confirmed instances of groundwater contamination you are 

aware as a result of hydraulic fracturing. 

Response: I am not aware of any proven case where the hydraulic fracturing 

process itself has affected water, although there are investigations ongoing. My 

understanding is that the EPA is undertaking a comprehensive study of the 

possible impacts of hydraulic fracturing on water sources. Outside of the 

fracturing process itself, there are documented instances of spills of wastewater 

from hydraulic fracturing into surface water, as well as leaking of methane or 

produced/flowback water into groundwater via cracked well casings. 

Compilation of a comprehensive list of all instances is beyond my current 

capacity, but I have provided several recent examples below. 

1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers reported 20 instances of 

groundwater contamination by natural gas, as the result of drilling 
56 


23820.042

operations. They noted that most of the cases resulted from improper 

cementing and casing of wells (July 2011 ). 

2. Duke University researchers found that groundwater near active 

hydraulically fractured wells contained, on average, methane 

concentrations 17 times higher than drinking water wells located more 

than I km from a natural gas well (May 2011}. 

3. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection fined Chesapeake 

Energy nearly $1.09 million for contaminating the drinking water of 16 

families with natural gas, and, separately, for an explosion at a condensate 

storage tank. It was determined that the contamination resulted from 

improper casing and cementing (May 2011 ). 

4. The Pennsylvania Land Trust issued a report discussing drilling company 

citations for 1,435 violations by the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection over a period of2.5 years. Nearly half of the 

violations addressed improper erosion and sedimentation plans and 

inadequate construction of wastewater impoundments tha~ were not 

properly lined or not structurally sound. There were 155 citations for 

discharging industrial waste onto the ground or into commonwealth 

waters, and there were 100 violations of the state Clean Streams Law 

(August 2010). 

5. The Denver Post informed that oil and gas companies have reported 

almost 1 ,000 spills to Colorado regulators over a period of2.5 years, 

totaling 5.2 million gallons of drilling liquids and oil. Produced water and 

hydraulic fracturing fluids used for natural gas extraction were the most 

common substances spilled, accounting for nearly half of the spills, 461, 

and about 85 percent of the amount spilled, 106,000 barrels. One hundred 

eighty-two spills got into groundwater and 82 into surface water. Garfield 

County had the most material spilled, 66,386 barrels, mostly drilling 

liquids and water used in natural-gas exploration (June 2010). 

6. Ohio Department of Natural Resources issued a report documenting the 

natural gas invasion of aquifers in Bainbridge Township due to natural gas 

well casing failures (September 2008). 

3. Please provide at least three examples of the positive and negative economic impacts that 

were a result of litigation to which American Rivers was a party. 

Response: I no longer work at American Rivers and as a result, do not have access 

to the data required to answer this question with specificity. In general, however, 

under my tenure, American Rivers consistently considered the costs as well as the 

means of replacing lost public benefits in its advocacy activities, including 

litigation. 
57 


23820.043

For example, in the case of hydropower licensing settlements the settlements 

resulted, on average, in less than five percent of the generating capacity of any 

one project being impacted and, in most cases, that capacity was made up through 

improvements in turbine efficiency and other changes in project operation to 

enhance power generating capacity. 

4. Through your experience with AR have you thought of an novel ways in which to 

expedite environmental actions at federal agencies to streamline the permitting process or 

to strengthen the economic analysis done prior to agency action? 

Response: During my tenure at American Rivers, the organization worked with 

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to facilitate and streamline 

hydropower relicensing. The licensing of non-federal hydropower dams is 

something that American Rivers has been involved with since its founding. In the 

early to mid 1990s, the licensing process was characterized by litigation and 

conflict. Shortly after my arrival at American Rivers, the organization opened a 

dialogue with members of the hydropower industry, as well as federal agencies 

and other stakeholders, to facilitate collaboration and settlement. The result has 

been 160 settlements in which American Rivers was a signatory, advisor, or 

funder of grassroots partners. During that time, the organization also worked to 

negotiate new regulations for Federal Energy Regulatory Commission known as 

the Integrated Licensing Process, which set up new timetables, streamlined 

permitting, and supported better, more integrated decisions among the various 

agencies with statutory responsibility. This includes coordination with the Clean 

Water Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, as well 

as the Federal Power Act. It has been applauded by industry, agencies, and NGOs 

alike. 

5. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a federal agency is required to 

look at the "human impact". Please provide a list of what you see as the breadth and 

definition of"human impacts". 

Response: I am aware that the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEP A) process is to consider what effects a proposed project may have on the 

environment. If confirmed as Assistant Secretary, I would become familiar with 

the Department's role in this process and the issues associated with the process 

and would look to the Council on Environmental Quality, which administers 

NEP A, for its input and guidance on this issue. 

6. Please discuss your understanding of the economics of why it is important for federal 

agencies to operate their permitting processes/responsibilities smoothly and with 

certainty and timeliness. Please also discuss the economics of resource development and 

how a nation generates wealth through the extraction and development of its natural 

resources. 
58 


23820.044

Response: I am not an economist and therefore I am able to provide only a 

general response to this question. My understanding is that federal agencies often 

rely on a system of regulations, including the issuance of permits, to implement 

the authority they are provided under applicable statutes. At the Department of 

the Interior, this could be permits under the Endangered Species Act or permits 

for energy development activities. While the authority to issue permits for 

mineral extraction activities fall under the Assistant Secretary for Land and 

Minerals Management and not the position for which I have been nominated, I am 

aware that these processes not only protect the public's health, welfare, safety, 

and the environment, but also serve to promote economic growth, innovation, and 

job creation. Therefore, it is important that the regulatory process is efficient, 

effective, and that it provides predictability and certainty to the regulated 

community. I am aware that President Obama, government-wide, and Secretary 

Salazar, at the Department, have supported efforts to improve regulatory functions 

to protect the environment, manage the natural resources under the Department's 

jurisdiction, and promote energy independence. 
59 


23820.045

Senator Mike Crapo 

I. In a recent meeting with my staff you indicated that your responsibilities under the 

Endangered Species Act would be limited to matters directly within the jurisdiction of the 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Park Service (NPS). However, the 

FWS has broad authority to protect species under its purview, and that authority can 

impact the decisions of other agencies. As such, the authorities of the individual in this 

particular position are quite substantial. Considering this broad authority that you would 

have to influence decisions across a broad range of federal agencies, what assurances can 

you provide that you will not seek to influence the actions of agencies other than the 

FWSandNPS? 

Response: The FWS's role under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is to 

assist other federal agencies in ensuring that their actions are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed species or destroy or 

adversely modify designated critical habitat for those species. The Act's 

prohibitions against jeopardy and adverse modification apply to the action 

agency, and the Service's role is to assist the action agency in determining how 

they may move forward in accordance with the Act. If confirmed, I will support 

that consultative role of the Service and recognize that the decisions on how to 

proceed rest with the action agencies. 

2. In 2003, I convened a series of collaborative talks in Boise to see if the parties that were 

litigating the biological opinion for the upper Snake River Basin would be willing to take 

a break from litigation and undertake a collaborative process instead. Everyone around 

the table with the exception of environmental groups, including American Rivers, agreed 

to try and withhold further litigation, and those talks fell apart as a result. However, you 

stated at a recent meeting with my staff that collaboration should always be the way 

forward and that "litigation should be a last resort." How do you reconcile your 

statement on collaboration with the decision of the environmental groups to walk away 

from the 2003 collaborative talks and to instead continue litigating? 

Response: If confirmed, I will voluntarily recuse myself from participating in any 

Interior Department decisions regarding the Columbia-Snake River System for 

the full time I serve as Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks .. I will 

abide by the terms of my ethics agreement, including the applicable ethics rules 

and the Administration's ethics pledge, and I will regularly seek the assistance 

and guidance of the Department's Ethics Office. I have consulted with the 

Department's Ethics Office and understand that, as provided by the terms of my 

ethics agreement and the Administration's ethics pledge, I will not participate for 

two years in any particular matters involving specific parties in which American 

Rivers is a party or represents a party. It is important to note that, should I be 

confirmed as Assistant Secretary, federal management of the lower Snake River 

dams would not fall under my purview. 
60 


23820.046

I believe that collaborative approaches are the best way to achieve lasting 

solutions to difficult natural resource issues and that litigation should be a last 

resort. I believe that to achieve success, such collaborative approaches should be 

open and transparent, and include a robust analysis of all alternatives. 

I also believe that resolving environmental concerns while balancing the need for 

development is more productive than costly, contentious and time-consuming 

litigation-driven decision making. In the early to mid 1990s, the licensing process 

was characterized by litigation and conflict. Shortly after my arrival at American 

Rivers, the organization opened a dialogue with members of the hydropower 

industry, as well as federal agencies and other stakebolders, to facilitate 

collaboration and settlement. The result has been 160 settlements in which 

American Rivers was a signatory, advisor, or funder of grassroots partners. 

During that time, the organization also worked to negotiate new regulations for 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission known as the Integrated Licensing 

Process, which set up new timetables, streamlined permitting, and supported 

better, more integrated decisions among the various agencies with statutory 

responsibility. 

I know that your efforts in 2003 to convene discussions between the various 

parties interested in the operations of the upper Snake River projects was 

appreciated by American Rivers. However, American Rivers and other 

environmental groups were excluded from the confidential Snake River Basin 

Adjudication Settlement talks which were discussing some of the same issues, and 

which were closing in on a final settlement that would be ratified by the Senate 

without the input or pre-decisional review of American Rivers or other 

environmental organizations. Therefore it was difficult and in the end impossible, 

for these groups to continue discussions with other interested parties. 

3. American Rivers is on record stating that a variety of energy and resource development 

activities contribute to the "endangerment" of rivers in some way. What assurances can 

you provide that you will not utilize this position, and the broad authorities it carries, to 

hinder or preclude energy and resource development throughout the United States? 

Response: As President and CEO of American Rivers, my role was to represent 

the mission of the organization to promote healthy rivers and clean water. Should 

I be confirmed as the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, I would 

have a new role and responsibilities to implement the policies and positions of the 

Administration and to administer administer the laws and directives of Congress 

impartially 

Domestic energy development is a top priority of both President Obama and 

Secretary Salazar. If confirmed, I would support the Administration's efforts in 

this regard. I believe that in most cases, a safe and responsible approach to 

balancing energy and environmental needs can be found. 
61 


23820.047

4. The FWS has argued that candidate conservation agreeements, while commendable, 

simply do not provide enough certainty to preclude listings of certain species. Recent 

examples relevant to Idaho are the Slickspot Peppergrass listing as a threatened species 

and the warranted but precluded finding for the Greater Sage Grouse. Several groups that 

have participated in these efforts are now asking why they put in so much work on these 

agreements in the first place, since the government went ahead and listed these species 

anyway. Please provide your view on the merits of and reasons for state and local 

governments and others to continue investing substantial energy and resources into these 

voluntary efforts, especially considering the FWS' recent commitment to issue ESA 

determinations on 261 species over the next six years. 

Response: My understanding is that Candidate Conservation Agreements with 

Assurances (CCAAs) provide participating property owners with assurances that 

if they engage in certain conservation actions for species included in the 

agreement, they will not be required to implement additional conservation 

measures beyond those in the CCAA and additional land, water, or resource use 

limitations will not be imposed on them should the species become listed in the 

future, unless they consent to such changes. I am aware that the Department 

supports efforts that provide assurances to landowners who take steps to protect 

species, including conservation agreements that are sufficient to preclude the need 

for listing, when possible. If confirmed, I would share that commitment and 

support those efforts. 
62 


23820.048

Senator John Boozman 

(re: tenure at American Rivers and tl1e consequences of dam/levee removal) 

During your time as CEO at American Rivers, the organization advocated dam and levee 

removal. Some dams are dangerous and/or no longer serve significant, useful purposes. 

However, American Rivers is known to have targeted safe dams and levees that provide 

tremendous benefits to our country, such as affordable, emissions-free hydropower. 

I. The office of Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks within the Department 

of Interior has the power to influence federal government activities relating to the 

construction, operation, and maintenance of reservoirs. In order to help the Committee 

review your previous involvement \vith dam removal efforts, please provide a detailed 

list of dams and levees that American Rivers publicly sought to have removed during 

your tenure at the organization. 

Response: As I am no longer associated with the organization, I do not have 

access to the specific and detailed information that is requested in these questions. 

American Rivers was involved in approximately 250 dam removals during my 

16.5 year tenure. To my knowledge, American Rivers did not advocate for the 

removal of any existing levees during my tenure. 

However, I am able to answer in general that: 

The majority of dam removals undertaken by American Rivers during my tenure 

were done at the request of the dam owner to resolve some public problem created 

by the dam, such as flooding, danger of dam failure, public safety issues such as 

drownings, etc. These dams were uniformly old and obsolete and were providing 

little, if any, economic or public benefits. One example is the Embrey Dam on 

the Rappahannock River in Virginia. 

American Rivers cooperated with federal, state, and local officials, including 

former U.S. Senator John Warner to remove a dam which had not generated 

power in more than 30 years and had caused numerous drownings and was an 

impediment to navigation, recreation, and migratory fish important to sport and 

commercial fishing. 

American Rivers advocated dam removal against the wishes of the dam owner in 

a very small number of instances, most prominently, four dams on the lower 

Snake River in Idaho. In those few instances where the dam owner was originally 

opposed to removal, a mutually satisfactory result was achieved. An example is 

the removal of the 165-year-old Edwards Dam on the Kennebec River in Augusta, 

Maine which generated a usually small amount of hydropower. Since removal of 

this dam in 1999, the city of Augusta has benefited from increasing tourism based 

on a re-established sport fishery. 
63 


23820.049

Other than the four Lower Snake river dams, the dams that American Rivers 

remove were beyond their design life and provided little benefit to society while 

imposing significant costs to the public (such as lost revenue and jobs associated 

with commercial and sport-fishing). 

In terms of hydropower, American Rivers consistently considered the cost to 

replace lost generating capacity and worked to identitY means of replacing that 

generating capacity as part of its advocacy efforts. For example, on the Penobscot 

River in Maine, a collaborative effort between a power company, state and federal 

agencies, tribes, fishermen and conservationists succeeded in maintaining the 

project's hydropower generating capacity while removing two dams to open 

nearly I ,000 miles of historic river habitat for endangered Atlantic salmon. 

In terms of drinking water, I am not aware of any dam removals that would have 

impacted reservoirs that were significant sources of drinking water. 

In terms of flood damage reduction benefits, I am not aware of any dam removals 

that would have lessened flood protections. In fact, in the case of several dam 

removals in which AR was involved, the likelihood of future flood damages were 

reduced by dam removal. In Harmony Junction, Pennsylvania, the removal of an 

old dam to restore fish and wildlife habitat also solved serious flooding problems 

and created a recreational resource that supports the community's economy and 

quality oflife. 

In terms of navigation, the only case where navigation would be significantly 

impacted is the lower Snake River dams. During my tenure, American Rivers 

consistently called for, as a pre-condition to dam removal, that rail and highway 

capacity be upgraded to support grain shipping. 

In terms of preventing ingress of water for business, manufacturing, recreation, 

and farming, I am not aware of any such instances pertaining to American River's 

dam removal advocacy. In fact, American Rivers worked with state and federal 

dam safety officials to determine effective approaches to protecting people, 

homes, and businesses from high hazard dams that could fail and would be 

catastrophic to communities below them. 

I cannot recall any instances during my tenure where American Rivers advocated 

levee removal. American Rivers occasionally advocated levee setbacks to 

provide more area within levees to contain floodwaters. American Rivers 

advocated closing of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) after it caused 

levee failures in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. 

2. Please specifY which of the dams (on your list of dams that American Rivers publicly 

sought to have removed during your tenure at the organization) impound reservoirs that 

supply water to hydroelectric power stations, and please list and rank these stations by 

their generating capacity. For each dam on your list that impounds water for the purpose 
64 


23820.050

of power generation, did you consider the cost to replace lost hydropower generating 

capacity before determining whether to advocate for dam removal? If so, in each case, 

what type of analysis did you use to determine the cost? Please provide any data or 

analysis American Rivers used or which you can currently locate regarding the projected 

cost to ratepayers to replace lost power generation benefits from the dams that American 

Rivers publicly supported removing. 

Response: Please see my response above. 

3. On a related issue, during your time as CEO at American Rivers, was the organization 

involved in efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or to influence public opinion 

regarding the importance of greenhouse gas emissions reductions? If so, please explain. 

Please provide any data or analysis American Rivers considered or which you can 

currently locate regarding the projected greenhouse gas emissions that would occur in 

order to replace lost power generation benefits from dams that American Rivers publicly 

supported removing. Please be specific with regard to each dam on the list. 

Response: During my tenure, American Rivers publicly supported efforts to 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to inform the public of the importance of 

greenhouse gas reductions. Likely impacts of increased earth temperatures 

include changes in precipitation that lead to increased frequency and severity of 

floods and droughts, as well as higher water temperatures. Floods, droughts, and 

increased water temperatures impact the health of rivers and the communities 

which depend on them, which is the mission of American Rivers. 

In terms of hydropower generation, American Rivers consistently considered the 

cost to replace lost generating capacity and identified means of replacing that 

generating capacity as part of any advocacy efforts. For example, on the 

Penobscot River in Maine, a collaborative effort between a power company, state 

and federal agencies, tribes, fishermen and conservationists succeeded in 

maintaining all of the project's hydropower generating capacity while removing 

two dams to open nearly 1,000 miles of historic river habitat for endangered 

Atlantic salmon. 

4. How will you be involved in agency decisions, administration discussions and 

deliberations, or official activities that could impact our nation's capacity to produce 

clean, affordable, renewable, emissions-free, hydroelectric power? 

Response: Domestic energy development is a top priority of both President Obama and 

Secrelliry Salazar and I support the Administration's efforts in this regard. The President 

has said that we must look into possible negative impacts, especially on water sources, and 

I believe that, in most cases, a safe and responsible approach to balancing energy and 

environmental needs can be found. 

If confirmed, I would commit to undertaking efforts to evaluate current practices 

to ensure that they are consistent with the Administration's goal of promoting 
65 


23820.051

renewable energy sources, including hydroelectric power, while conserving fish 

and wildlife in development and operational processes. 

I would also commit to working with States, Tribes and other federal agencies to 

ensure that the Service conducts its reviews and processes under the Federal 

Power Act in a timely manner consistent with statutory requirements to the 

maximum extent allowed by funding and workload constraints. 

5. Please specify which of the dams (on your list of dams that American Rivers publicly 

sought to have removed during your tenure at the organization) provide drinking water 

supplies to municipalities or other community water systems. For each dam on this list, 

did you consider the cost to replace lost drinking water supplies, including the cost to 

construct alternative infrastructure or other potential environmental costs for alternative 

water supplies, before deciding whether to advocate for dam removal? If so, in each 

case, what type of analysis did you use to determine the cost? Please provide any data or 

analysis American Rivers used or which you can currently locate regarding the projected 

cost to replace lost drinking water supplies that would occur as a result of removal of 

each dam that American Rivers publicly supported removing. Please be specific with 

regard to each dam on the list. 

Response: Please see my response to question number 1 on this issue. 

6. Please specify which of the dams (on your list of dams that American Rivers publicly 

sought to have removed during your tenure at the organization) provide flood damage 

reduction benefits. For each dam on this list, did you consider the cost of lost flood 

damage reduction benefits before deciding whether to advocate for dam removal? If so, 

in each case, what type of analysis did you use to determine the cost? Please provide any 

data or analysis American Rivers used or which you can currently locate regarding the 

projected loss of flood damage reduction benefits that would occur as a result of removal 

of each dam that American Rivers publicly supported removing. Please be specific with 

regard to each dam on the list. 

Response: Please see my response to question number I on this issue. 

7. Please specify which of the dams (on your list of dams that American Rivers publicly 

sought to have removed during your tenure at the organization) provide navigation 

benefits. For each dam on this list, did you consider the cost of lost navigation benefits 

before deciding whether to advocate for dam removal? Please provide any analysis 

American Rivers used or which you can currently locate regarding the projected Joss of 

navigation benefits that would occur as a result of removal of each dam that American 

Rivers publicly supported removing. Please be specific with regard to each dam on the 

list. 

Response: Please see my response to question number 1 on this issue. 

8. Finally, please specify which of the dams and levees (on your list of dams and levees that 

American Rivers publicly sought to have removed during your tenure at the organization) 
66 


23820.052

provide benefits by preventing ingress of water into areas that could otherwise not be 

used for their current beneficial economic purposes, such as business, manufacturing, 

recreation, and farming. For each dam or levee on this list, did you consider such 

economic impacts before deciding whether to advocate for dam or levee removal? Please 

provide any data or analysis American Rivers used or which you can currently locate 

regarding the projected economic impact due to loss of current beneficial land uses that 

would occur as a result of removing dams or levees that prevent ingress of water into 

areas that are now developed for other uses. 

Response: Please see my response to question number I on this issue. 

Series of Follow-Up Questions for Ms. Rebecca Wodder 

(re: Litigation involving American Rivers) 

In response to a question I asked during the Hearing on July 19,2011, you stated the following: 

" ... I certainly understand and have been advised by the ethics office that I will be recused from 

any matter that would have been in litigation that American Rivers was involved in. I certainly 

would do that. Actually the organization that I used to lead has been only involved in a very 

small number of cases •• over my 16-and- a-half years, only 16 cases. So it would be a small 

number to be recused from." 

9. My office is reviewing records, but it seems that American Rivers has been "involved in" 

far more than 16 lawsuits over the course of your tenure in the organization, including as 

a lead plaintiff, as a listed party, through filing amicus briefs, or in any other manner. 

Please provide a complete list of lawsuits that American Rivers was a party to or 

"involved in" during your tenure at American Rivers, so that we can clear up this 

discrepancy. 

Response: If confirmed, I will abide by the terms of my ethics agreement, 

including the applicable ethics rules and the Administration's ethics pledge, and I 

will regularly seek the assistance and guidance of the Department's Ethics Office. 

I have consulted with the Department's Ethics Office and understand that, as 

provided by the terms of my ethics agreement and the Administration's ethics 

pledge, I will not participate for two years in any particular matters involving 

specific parties in which American Rivers is a party or represent~ a party. 

As I stated during my confirmation hearing before this Committee, it is my 

understanding that American Rivers was the plaintiff or co-plaintiff in 16 cases 

during my tenure. I have attached a spreadsheet provided by American Rivers 

that describes theses cases. This spreadsheet also identifies cases in which 

American Rivers was a petitioner in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC) proceedings, cases in which American Rivers submitted an amicus brief, 

and cases in which American Rivers intervened primarily on behalf of the Federal 

government as an intervenor defendant. 
67 


23820.053

I believe strongly that a transparent collaborative approach to problem-solving 

and looking for ways to resolve environmental concerns while balancing the need 

for development is more productive than costly, contentious and time-consuming 

litigation-driven decision making. Consistent with this belief, shortly after my 

arrival at American Rivers, the organization opened a dialogue with members of 

the hydropower industry, as well as federal agencies and other stakeholders, to 

facilitate collaboration and settlement. The result bas been 160 settlements in 

which American Rivers was a signatory, advisor, or funder of grassroots partners. 

During that time, the organization also worked to negotiate new regulations for 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission known as the Integrated Licensing 

Process, which set up new timetables, streamlined permitting, and supported 

better, more integrated decisions among the various agencies with statutory 

responsibility. 

Also, the Equal Access to Jus/ice Act (EAJA) is a well-intentioned law that helps level the 

playing field between the federal government and opposing litigants. However, there have been 

cases of abuse, including patterns of lawsuits involving organizations that repeatedly "sue-andsettle" with the federal government over minor procedural issues. Also, EAJA payments are 

made with a stunning lack of transparency. 

I 0. In order to provide more transparency and to help the Committee review the involvement 

of American Rivers in lawsuits against the federal government, please provide: (1) a list 

of all lawsuits against the federal government to which American Rivers was a party over 

the course of your tenure, (2) the court's judgment in each such case, if applicable, (3) a 

list of all such cases that were settled or otherwise disposed of, ( 4) the amount of any 

award to American Rivers under EAJA for each such case, and (5) any other federal 

resources that were awarded to American Rivers as a result of each such case. 

Response: With respect to questions (I), (2) and (3), please see my response to 

the previous question. 

With respect to questions (4) and (5), to the best of my knowledge, I am not aware 

of any awards under the Equal Access to Justice Act or other federal resources 

that were awarded to American Rivers as result of each such case. 

(re: National Fis/1 Hatcltery Issues) 

1 I. The Administration's FY2012 budget proposes to cut Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

Hatchery funding by $6.288M. This funding is associated with the production of fish for 

the purpose of mitigating the effects of federal water development projects. In 2009, 

national fish hatchery mitigation facilities produced a total of 12,786,600 fish and 

15,924,000 eyed eggs, which directly supported 3,500 jobs and nearly $325 million in 

total economic benefit to local and state economies from Service operated mitigation 

facilities, as cited in the Service report Economic Effects of Rainbow Trout Production by 

NFHS. In the same FY2012 budget, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers bas requested an 

increase in its budget of $3.8 million to fund mitigation fish production at FWS facilities. 

23820.054

American Rivers Litigation, 1994 to Present 

t '''fl.' · ,;;,;,:slt!ltiopl ·. o, ·.:· .-;r,,;;:oati/" · )if:i'ilAR!i:iRoJe;;,:; · ., .· · · ,.:·; . :,~. Diifitildaiiu8l:<;x;;.;,:;;:;,.~>i;;;;;:.iJ::o;:,,·":;~fci;~i>.fk'S~;p;iz:i,ii\}£fr';:;;;;;,',•fi.t~·::::·~·;;:·;i,:Bf!Xf•~~~~.;;;.¥;;;;~,

Am. Riversv. FERC, 

129 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 

1997) 

Oregon Natural Desert 

Ass'n v. Green, 953 F. 

Supp.1133 (0. Or. 

1997} 

Am. Rivers v. FERC, 

170 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 

1999); In reAm. Rivers 

and Idaho Rivers 

United, 372 F.3d 413 

(O.D.C. 2004). 

Am. Rivers v. Narl 

Marine Fisheries Serv., 

168 F.3d 497 (9th Cir. 

1999) 

1997 Plainfi.ff 

1997 Coplaintiff 

1999 Plaintiff 

1999 Plaintiff 

FERC 

Michael GREEN, in his 

official capacity as Bums 

Disbict Manager, Bureau of 

Land Management 

FERC 

NMFS; US Army Corps of 

Engineers; US Bureau of 

Reclamation; and State of 

Montana, DefendantIntervenor; and Columbia 

River Alliance, DefendantIntervenor-Appellee. 

Plaintiffs sought judicial review of FERC orders which issued hyd

licenses to several projects but refused to incorporate several co

imposed by VT pursuant to certification authorized by Clean Wa

Environmental groups brought action against Bureau of La

Management (BLM) and two officials, alleging that managemen

river violated Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA), Nation

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Administrative Procedu

(APA}. 

Parties petitioned the court to review the refusal of FERC to i

consultation pursuant to section 7(a)(2} of the ESA, 16 U.S

1536(a)(2), with NMFS on FERC's ongoing regulatory authori

Idaho Power Company's operations of the Hell's Canyon Compl

waiting six years for a response AR requested a writ of mand

compelling FERC to act formally on the 1997 petition. 

Appellee federal agencies provided a biological opinion addres

effects of proposed dam operations on three listed snake river 

species. Appellants, environmental groups, claimed that the En

Species Act, 16 U.S.C.S. § 1536(a)(2) required more rigorou

stringent standards for achieving both survival and recove
69 


23820.055

This funding source is insufficient and unreliable. 1 do not oppose the Fish & Wildlife 

Service's efforts to work with the Corps and other partners, in all budget climates, to 

determine equitable reimbursable agreements to satisfy these responsibilities. However, 

without sufficient, long-term agreements, there will be a harmful reduction of mitigation 

activities, and the federal government will fail to keep its commitment to mitigate the 

effects of its projects. As the Arkansas Delegation, and other concerned members of 

House and Senate, work to address these concerns, will you commit to be personally 

engaged and to work with us (and with OMB), to the best of your ability, to address our 

concerns? 

Response: If confirmed, I will commit to personally being engaged in working 

with you, the Arkansas delegation, other concerned members of the House and 

Senate, and the Office of Management and Budget to seek appropriate long-term 

agreements regarding funding associated with the production of fish for the 

purpose of mitigating the effects of federal water development projects. 

23820.056

Am. Rivers v. FERC, 

201 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2000 

2000). 

Am. Rivers v. Glickman 

(2000). This case 

cannot be located. It 

may be the same as 

Am. Rivers v. Towns, 

CIV-00...1921 

Wilderness Soc'y v. 

Norton. cv 5-02-2375 

GEB GGH (E.D. Cal. 

2002) 

2000 

2002 

Plaintiff 

Plaintiff Plaintiff . 

American Rivers Litigation, 1994 to Present 

FERC 

United States Forest 

Service; Daniel Glickman 

(Sec. of USDA); Eleanor 

Towns (Regional Forester for 

theUSFS) 

At issue was the continued operation of two hydroelectric powe

located in Oregon along a twenty-five mile stretch of the McKen

The petitioners, a coalition of conservatlon/environmental organ

and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, challenge F

decision to reissue a hydropower license to the incumbent licen

Eugene Water and Electric Board ("EWEB"). Petitioners conten

the Commission granted the disputed license (i) without conduc

requisite environmental analysis under relevant provisions of the 

Power Act ("FPA"), 16 U.S. C. § 791a et seq., and the Natio

Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), 42 U.S. C. § 4321 et seq., a

violation of sections 100) and 18 of the FPA. 

Plaintiffs allege that the US Forest Service violated the Wild an

Rivers Act by operating without a comprehensive managemen

protect the Verde River. 

Gale A Norton, Secretary of US Fish and Wildlife Service related to their Jun

the Department of Interior deas1on to continue to allocate large amounts of water for irrigat

the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake Refuges 

23820.057

American Rivers Litigation, 1994 to Present 

The Forest Service allowed jet-boating on the wild and scenic 

Riverhawks v. Zepeda, Gilbert Zepeda, District River to increase markedly over the years. The river managem

228 F.Supp.2d 1173 specified that jet-boating usage would be limited to 1968 leve

(0. Ore. 2002). Also Ranger, Gold Beach Ranger Forest Service also failed In this regard to •protect and enhan

2002 Plaintiff District; Ann Venemen, see:2004WL Secretary of USDA; U.S outstandingly remarkable values of the river, and failed to ob

3092747, 2005 WL NEPA's requirements In establishing the river management plan

913127. Forest Service alleged that jet-boating levels threaten the viability of the northw

pond turtle and Chinook salmon as •sensitive species. • 

Issue is whether Corps met its obligation to comply with state 

quality standards, as required by the CWA. Plaintiff-appellant

Corps's issuance of a May 2001 "Record of Consultation and S

Nafl Wildlife Fed'n v. of Decision• (2001 ROO), regarding Corps's operation of four d

U.S. Army Corps of 2004 Plaintiff US Arm C f e . the lower Snake River in was arbitrary and capricious and contr

Engineers, 384 F.3d Y orp 0 ng•neers in violation of the Admin. Procedure Act. The lawsuit claimed th

1163 (9th Cir. 2004). violated the APA because 2001 ROO did not address prope

Corps's obligations to comply with Washington's water quality s

for temperature, as required by CWA's incorporation of state 

quality law. 

Umpqua Valley Peitioners challenged the Forest Service's terms and condition

Audubon Soc'y v. PetitionerFERC, 149 Fed. Appx. 2005 Appellant FERC North Umpqua FERC license as arbitrary, capricious, an abu

598 {9th Cir. 2005). discretion and contrary to law. 

23820.058

Am. Rivers v. u.s. 

Army Corps of 

Engineers, 421 F.3d 

618 {8th Cir. 2005} 

Am. Rivers v. US 

Department of Interior, 

2006 U.S. Dist LEXIS 

72428 (W.O. Wash. 

Oct. 3, 2006). 

Am. Rivers v. NOAA 

Fisheries, 2006 U.S. 

Disl LEXIS 10576 (D. 

Or., Feb. 27. 2006) 

2005 Coplalntiff 

2006 Plaintiff 

2006 Plaintiff 

American Rivers Litigation, 1994 to Present 

Plltlta lnvolveclinclude: (I) N. Oal!ota. 

s. t>akota. Montana. Neblaaka. and 

Ml-; (2) llloske -·Coalition to 

Ptolecllhfl Mluourl Rivet, Conopco 

Plll!Upe Company. ElgoR Alpl1alt & 

Emulolont,lnc.. MagnoliaTIIINpartCompany, M-AtoaRivet 

Coalltlon :!()00, and MidwaSI TGimlnal 

W8rehouoo Company, lftc.: (3) M().ARK 

ANodallon and MISSOIIII Rivet Keel*': 

(4)/w. Rive!$, Envinlnment81 Defense. 

NWF,IIIIIiouutato Wildlife FedCIIIIIIona, 

and l:Wit Wallon l.eaglle of Anlellca; (S) 

MISSOIIII River Enero~ Sc!MceJ; (6) 

Nelltaslul Public Power Olstllcl; (7} the 

Mandan. Hktasla and M1ulra Nation; and 

(8) the Corps, Filii and Wllfie SeMce. 

and various~. sectlllaiiU and 

Ol!ie«s. Bec:ause of lllflir compellng 

tntemta.llla dlllicult lo clas8iiV each 

pany II$ • Plalmi!l, Defendant. 01' bo!h. 

US Department of Interior 

NOAA Fisheries; Bureau of 

Reclamation 

This case involves the interplay of the Corps' obligations under 

ESA and NEPA. The FCA authorizes the Corps to operate the 

River by balancing a variety of river interests. The ESA seeks t

and conserve endangered and threatened species and their h

NEPA requires agencies to consider and evaluate the pote

environmental consequences that may result from an agency ac

Corps must consider both competing river Interests and its 

obligations in the operation of the Missouri River. 

American Rivers challenged regulations issued jointly by DOl, D

DOA to implement the 2005 Energy Policy Act in a manner inco

with APA notice and comment requriements. 

Plaintiffs allege the 2005 Upper Snake BiOp's no-jeopardy con

· arbitrary and capricious because the SlOp fails to comply w

consultation requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Spe

(ESA), 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2) 

23820.059

NWF et al. v. NMFS et 

al., 524 F.3d 917 {9th 2008 

Cir. 2008). 

Trout Unlimited v. 

Lohn, 559 F .3d 946 

{9th Cir. 2009). 

Georgia River Network 

v. US Army Corps of 

Engineers, 2011 U.S. 

Olsl Lexis 44090 (S.D. 

Ga. 2011) 

Friends of Yosemite 

Valley v. Kempthome, 

520 F.3d 1024 {9th Cir. 

2008). 

2009 

2011 

2008 

Plaintiff 

Plaintiff 

Plaintiff 

Amicus Brief 

American Rivers Litigation, 1994 to Present 

Environmental organizations brought action alleging that NMFS 

NMFS; Army Corps of requirements of the ESA in its Issuance of biological opinion {B

Engineers; U.S. Bureau of proposed operations of ~~eral Columbia River Power System 

Reclamation; Donald L. dams and related facl11ties would not jeopardize listed salmo

Evans, in his official capacity st~h~~d in th~ lower Columb~a and Snake Rivers or adverse

as Secretary of Commerce· their critical habitat After the District Court. 2005 WL 1278878 

NOM Fisheries; D. Robert BiO~ i~lid, and subsequenUy, 2005 WL 1398223, granted

Lohn, in his official capacity organiZations' motion for a preliminary injunction, the Court of A

as Regional Direct of NOM 422 F.~ 7~2, affirmed and remanded. The United States Distr

Fisheries for the Dtstrict of Oregon, James A. Redden, Senior District Jud

WL 2488447. remanded to NMFS, with instructions. NMFS appe

the appeals were consolidated. 

D. Robert Lohn (Regional 

Administrator of NMFS 

Northwest Regional Office); 

NMFS 

us Army Corps of 

Engineers; and Grady 

County Board of 

Commissioners, Intervenor 

case involves questiOn regarding whether the National Marine 

Service may distinguish between natural and hatchery spawne

and steelhead when determining the level of protection the fish 

afforded under the ESA. 

Case involves a challenge to the Corps issuance of a permit to 

a fishing lake. The Corps improperly approved the Permit bas

flawed angler demand study, an inaccurate weUands delineatio

insufficient environmental analysis. 

23820.060

American Rivers Litigation, 1994 to Present 

Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Army Corps issued a CWA Section 404 permit to Coeur Alas

SEAlaska proposed Kensington Gold Mine. The permit would allow the 

Conservation Council, dump 210,000 gallons daily of wastewater from its mol facility 

129 S. Cl 2458 (2009); US Army Corp of Engineers, Lower Slate Lake. U.S. Dlst Court for the Dist. of AK upheld is

SEAlaska 2009 Amicus Brief permit. Environmental groups appealed. Ninth Circuit, 486 F

Conservation Council etal. reversed. Certiorari granted. AR, in cooperation with Clean W

v. U.S. Army Corps of Network, Cook inletkeeper, Earthworks, Friends of the Earth, 

Eng'rs, 580 F.3d 873 Wildlife Federation, National Resources Defense Council, 

(9th Cir. 2009). America. U.S. Public Interest Research Group, and Waterk

Alliance. filed Amicus Brief opposing permit. 

Daniel R. Glid<man (Sec. of 

Aglicullule); Charles B. Felton 

(Oirec!Ot of WV Division of Natural 

Hughes River 

Resoun:es); Paul w. Johnson (Chief Plaintiffs brought action seeking judicial review of decisions o

Administrator of the Soil 

Watershed ConseiValion Service, USDA}; Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Army Corps of 

Conservancy v. 1996 Amicus Brief Mhur E. Wdliams (Chief of approving construction of dam on river. Plaintiffs argued that N

Glickman. 81 F.3d 437 Engineenl, us ArtrtJ Corps of the Corps advance an interpretation of section 5(d)(1) of the 

{4th Cir. 1996). Engineers); Robert L Bensey (Stale Scenic Rivers Act, 16 u.s.c. section 1276(d)(1). that is contr

CcnseMltionlsl. Natural Resoulees 

Consetvation Service, USDA); Fred plain language and long standing Interpretations. 

Fields (Chairman of the Board of 

Super;isors of the Utde Kanawha 

SoR Conse<valion Olstric:t) 

SCOTUS is considering whether wetlands, near ditches or m

Rapanos v. United U.S. Aimy Corps of drains that eventually emptied into traditional navigable wate

States, 547 u.s. 715 2006 Amicus Brief "waters of the United States• under CWA. If the court decid

(2006). Engineers, et. al. weUands were not "waters of the US" it could significantly na

jurisdictional reach of the CWA. AR filed Amicus Brief oppo

Interpretation of the statue. 

23820.061

S. Fla. Water Mgmt. 

Dist v. Miccosukee 

Tribe of Indians, 541 

u.s. 95 (2004). 

Simmons v. U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, 

120 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 

1997) 

Pub. Util. Oisl No. 1 of 

Pend OreiUe County v. 

State, Dept of Ecology, 

146 Wash. 2d 778, 

783. 51 P.3d 744, 747 

(2002). 

S. Yuba River Citizens 

League v. NMFS, et. 

al., 723 F.Supp.2d 

1247 (E.D. Cal. 2010) 

2004 Amicus Brief 

1997 Amicus Brief 

2002 Amicus Brief 

2010 Amicus Brief 

American Rivers Litigation, 1994 to Present 

SOUth Florida Water 

Management District 

US Army Corps of Engineers; Togo 

West (Sec. of 1ha Army); Maj. Gen. 

Patricli Stevens (Chief of Engineets, 

u.s. Army Corps of Engineers,); 

Ralph Greica (Commander and Disl 

Engineer, u.s. Army Corps of 

Engineers); City of Marion, It; 

Robert IMler. Mayor 

Plaintiffs argue the SWFWMD violated the CWA by failing to 

NPOES permit for pumping already poUuted water from one n

water (a water control canal) through a pumping station into 

navigable water. The CWA requires an NPOES permit b

discharging pollutants from a point source into a navigable wa

District Court rejected the Oefendanfs argument that it wasn

addition of pollutants because the point source did not add poll

the •outside world." 

Opponents of plan to build water reservoir to supply both city 

district sued Army Corps of Engineers, alleging that Corps, in 

permit, violated NEPA by falling to consider all reasonable alte

its final EIS. The District Court for the S.D. of IHinois entered jud

Corps. Opponents appealed. The Court of Appeals, Cudahy

Judge, held that Corps failed to comply with its duty under N

consider all reasonable alternatives. 

At issue in the Instant case is whether a state, in issuing a ce

Washington Dept of Ecology; under section 401 of the CWA in a license amendment procee

Center for impose In-stream flow requirements that reduce flows available 

Law and Polu:y generation under an appropriated waler right This Is a compa

(Intervenor/Respondent) to 511 u.s. 700 (1994),which did not squarely address the 

NMFS 

Environmental groups brought various claims against N

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFSI, United States Army C

Engineers (USACE), and federal officials arising from ope

two dams on the South Yuba River. Plaintiffs moved for p

injunction, and cross-motions for summary judgment we

23820.062

(1) S.D. Warren Co. v. 

Me. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 

547 U.S. 370 (U.S. 

2006); (2) S.D. Warren 

Co. v. FERC, 164 Fed. 

Appx. 1 (D.C. Cir. 

2005). 

City of Bluefield et al v. 

Division of Water and 

Waste Mgmt. et al, Civ. 

Action No. 10.AA·71, 

Circuit Court of 

Kanawha County, W>l 

County of Okanogan v. 

NMFS, 347 F.3d 1081 

(9th Cir. 2003). 

2005 

2010 2003 

American Rivers Litigation, 1994 to Present 

Intervenor (on behalf of (1) Maine Department of 

Defendant, FERC) Environmental Protection; (2) FERC 

(1) In April, 2003 the Commissioner of the Maine Departm

Environmental Protection issued water quality certification requ

5 dams owned and operated by S.D. Warren Co. on the Pre

River in Maine. Warren challenged the authority of the OEP 

compliance with Its water quality standards under Section 4

Clean Water Act. (2) In the second case, initiated in Feder

FERC issued 40.year licenses to S.D. warren Co. for 5 dam

Presumpscot River in Maine. The licenses required the com

create expensive upstream and downstream fishways for an

species. S.D. Warren Co. requested a rehearing, was den

subsequently filed suit in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appe

Case Involves question under CWA 402(p), which requires sto

IntervenorRespondent Division of Water and Waste regulated under a series of permits for municipalities, Indus

W>/ Dept. of construction sites. W>IOEP released draft permit addressin

Environmental Protection efficiency and providing credits for smart growth. Question i

DEFENDANT-APPELLEES: 

NMFS; FWS; U.S. Forest 

Service: Harv Forsgren, 

Regional Forester; Sonny J. 

O'Neal, Supervisor 

Okanogan Nafl Forest 

Defendant- DEFENDANT· 

lntervenor-AppeHae INTERVENOR-APPELLEES: 

Am. Rivers; Washington 

Envt'l Council; Okanogan 

Wilderness League; Center 

for Envt'l Law and Policy; 

Trout Unlimited; Defenders 

of Wildlife 

permit was within bounds of federal and state law. 

Plaintiffs, permit holders, brought suit challenging the U.S

Service's decision requiring reduced use of water from ditche

low flow, intended to protect certain endangered species of fi

Court granted summary judgment for government. Plaintiffs 

23820.063

City of Klamath Falls, 

OR v. Babbitt, 947 

F.Supp. 1 (O.O.C. 

1996). 

FPL Energy Me. Hydro 

1996 

LLC v. FERC, 287 F.3d 2002 

1151 (D.C. Cir. 2002) 

Brd. of Mississippi 

Levee Comm'rs v. 

EPA, 2011 U.S. Dist 

LEXIS 32676 (N.D. 

Miss. 2011 ); on appeal 

case no. 11-60302; 

2011 WL 

2444032(CA5) 

(Appellate Brief 5th 

Cir.) 

2011 

DefendantIntervenor (on 

behalf of Interior 

Sec. Babbitt) 

DefendantIntervenor 

DefendantIntervenor 

American Rivers Litigation. 1994 to Present 

Bruce Babbitt, Secretary, US 

Dept of the Interior 

FERC Note: AR intervened 

on FERC's behalf 

Plaintiff alleged that Sec. Babbitt's designation of the Upper Klam

federal wild and scenic river was unlawful. Plaintiff alleges that 

failed to comply with NEPA because he prepared an Environ

Assessment rather than a fuR EIS, and since the Klamath Riv

lnduded in the OR state wild and scenic river system by an ini

doesn't meet the statutory requirement of section 2(a)(il) that a 

designated "by or pursuant to an act of the (state) legislatu

The question before the court was whether or not the Messalo

Stream was a "navigable" waterway. If yes, the four FPL Ene

Hydro Dams on the stream were subject to FERC regulation. If 

were only subject to less-stringent state regulations. 

Environmental Protection Case involves a challenge to EPA's authority under the CWA se

Agency Note: AR to veto the Yazoo Pumps Project Court held project was not exe

intervened on EPA's behalf regulation under the CWA. Case currently on appeal in the 5th 
78 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

Senator Inhofe has asked if he could open the questioning because he has another appointment. I said yes, so the floor is yours 

for 5 minutes. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I do have an Armed Service commitment I can’t get out of, so let 

me real quickly cover four things: hydraulic fracturing, the Clean 

Water Restoration Act, the Prairie Chicken, I am sure you are all 

anxious to hear about that, and fish and wildlife. 

The year 2009 was a great discovery year in terms of recoverable 

reserves. That is when we first recognized, and no one is going to 

argue with this, the United States of America has the largest recoverable reserves in oil, natural gas and coal than any country in 

the world. Quite often, people will say we only have 2 percent of 

the reserves. Those are proven reserves. In order to prove reserves, 

you have to drill. We are talking about recoverable reserves. 

The major change has been in natural gas. With this big movement, people want to use natural gas, not just because it is plentiful and clean but for we have incredible shale deposits. The problem is we can’t get one cubic foot of natural gas out of these deposits without the process called hydraulic fracturing. 

Ms. Wodder, I thought my colleague, Senator Barrasso, was 

going to quote but he didn’t quote a statement you made ‘‘unless 

we stop the threat of rampant shale fracking, the drinking water 

for 17 million people across the northeast will be threatened by 

toxic pollution. We can’t let natural gas companies fatten their 

profits by putting our precious, clean water at risk.’ 

Later in the Huffington Post, you said, ‘‘Fracking has a nasty 

track record of creating toxic chemical soup that pollutes groundwater and streams, threatening public health and wildlife.’ 

We know something about hydraulic fracturing because that 

started 60 years ago in my State of Oklahoma, not far from Duncan, Oklahoma. We have statements from virtually every State in 

the Union that has shale deposits. To the knowledge of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and staff, there has 

been no verifiable instance of harm of groundwater caused by hydraulic fracturing in Colorado. 

For Michigan, the same statement, there is no indication that hydraulic fracturing has ever caused damage to groundwater and so 

forth. In my State of Oklahoma, the same thing is true. When we 

had the Administrator, Lisa Jackson, we asked the same question 

and she said, ‘‘I am not aware of any proven case where the 

fracking process itself has affected water.’ 

The first question is, Ms. Wodder, are all these people wrong and 

you are right? 

Ms. WODDER. Thank you for your question, Senator Inhofe. 

Let me begin by saying that in my prior position as President 

and CEO of American Rivers, I had a job to do, I was representing 

my board and my members. There was a mission for the organization of protecting clean water and healthy rivers. I recognize very 

clearly that the job I have been nominated for is an entirely different job and that responsibilities and the role of that position 

would be to implement the policies of this Administration and imVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:21 Apr 10, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\23820.TXT VERN
79 

partially administer the law. That would be my intention should I 

be confirmed. 

Specifically, with respect to natural gas, I certainly agree that it 

is an important part of the Nation’s future energy security. As the 

President has said, the main thing we need to do is proceed carefully so that in developing that resource, we don’t have unintended 

consequences of damaging the clean water that we all depend 

upon. 

Last, I would say this is in the jurisdiction of the BLM and 

would not be in my purview should I be confirmed. 

Senator INHOFE. So you don’t necessarily believe that these four 

statements I read are accurate statements or do you think they are 

accurate statements? 

Ms. WODDER. The four statements? 

Senator INHOFE. The statement by Lisa Jackson and all the 

States who support hydraulic fracturing? My concern is, and I don’t 

have time for a long answer because my time is expiring rapidly, 

that you can’t get natural gas shale deposits without hydraulic 

fracturing and there has never been a case of groundwater contamination as a result of that practice. 

In answering for the record in writing, would you respond to 

that? I would appreciate it. 

When Dan Ashe came up for his nomination as Director of Fish 

and Wildlife, we talked about how they had developed this Fish 

and Wildlife Strategic Climate Change Plan. I asked him, are you 

going to be trying to use Fish and Wildlife to promote one of the 

positions, in this case cap and trade, and his response was that climate change is not an overreaching consideration driving the Service’s day-to-day decisionmaking processing. He went on to say, ‘‘We 

do not believe Fish and Wildlife is responsible for the regulation of 

greenhouse gases.’ Do you agree with that statement, yes or no? 

Ms. WODDER. Yes. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. 

The third area is water. I mentioned in my opening statement 

that not only did we overwhelmingly defeat the Clean Water Restoration Act but also the two authors, Congressman Oberstar and 

Senator Feingold. My concern is that in spite of the Clean Water 

Restoration Act being defeated, it appears the EPA is attempting 

to gain the jurisdiction the Clean Water Restoration Act would give 

them through draft guidance documents. I am extremely concerned 

about this course of action for a number of reasons. Could we depend on you to not try to use this for that purpose? 

Ms. WODDER. Senator, should I be confirmed, the Clean Water 

Act would be outside my jurisdiction. It would not be up to the Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks to implement the 

Clean Water Act. 

Senator INHOFE. The rest of the questions, I will submit for the 

record and would appreciate your responses. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. I want to note that the person who marked that 

law up, I did win my reelection. 

Senator INHOFE. You did. You were the exception. That is right. 

Senator BOXER. I know, I was, and a bit of a symbol for environmental protection and so on. 

80 

Any way, I am back and before you leave, my friend, I want to 

say I do appreciate your concerns about the issues you raised, as 

well as the concerns raised by Senator Barrasso. Honestly, if you 

look at the portfolio Ms. Wodder has, she won’t have any direct role 

at all in fracking and some of these other things. I hope you will 

take a look. This is a good woman and I think one who would be 

very responsive to your concerns. 

Again, before I got elected, I did other things in my life. I was 

a stockbroker. That is what I did. That was then and this is now. 

You were a mayor and you took some of those things with you. I 

think it is important that we not saddle her with issues that are 

not in her portfolio. 

Senator INHOFE. I appreciate that. I would respond by saying 

being a mayor is the hardest job in the world but there is a pattern 

here of appointments that is disturbing to me. We talked about 

John Bryson and several of the others. I want to be sure that these 

departments are not used to keep us from developing our resources 

so that we can reach independence. I would be very concerned 

about these efforts in all of the various regulatory bodies. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. I am very sad you view it this way. I don’t. 

Let me just say Senator Barrasso talked about a book that you 

once read, liked and quoted from. I wanted to straighten that out. 

You said after you read this book, you said, you know what, I 

would like to get my energy a little more locally, which I think is 

great because I have a solar roof in my house in California and I 

don’t have to pay for it, so I like the fact that I get it locally. 

The other point I wanted to make is if you embrace the quote of 

somebody, that doesn’t mean you agree with every single thing the 

person says. Am I right on that? 

Ms. WODDER. I would agree with that, Senator. 

Senator BOXER. For example, I love what Ronald Reagan said 

about the debt ceiling. He said in 1983, ‘‘The full consequences of 

a default or even the serious prospect of a default’—let the record 

show my colleague is walking away from me on a Ronald Reagan 

quote. ‘‘The full consequences of a default or even the serious prospect of a default by the United States are impossible to predict and 

awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of 

the U.S. would have substantial effects on domestic financial markets and on the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can ill afford to allow such a result.’ 

I embrace this comment by Ronald Reagan. Some other comments he made, I would distance myself from. He made some statements that I don’t agree with. The fact is, I don’t think we should 

go around here criticizing nominees who happen to agree with an 

idea in a book of which there were a hundred ideas. I think it is 

reminiscent of some bad, ugly times we had in this Country, so I 

want to move on from there. 

I would like to ask both of you to answer the following question 

that have to be asked and answered. First, I will ask Mr. Kopocis 

and then I will ask Ms. Wodder for the answers. 

Do you agree, if confirmed by the Senate, to appear before this 

committee or designated members of this committee and other appropriate committees of the Congress and provide information subVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:21 Apr 10, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\23820.TXT VERN
81 

ject to appropriate and necessary security protection with respect 

to your responsibilities? 

Mr. KOPOCIS. Yes, I do. 

Ms. WODDER. Yes, I do. 

Senator BOXER. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, 

documents, electronic and other forms of communication are provided to this committee, its staff and other appropriate committees 

in a timely fashion? 

Mr. KOPOCIS. Yes, I do. 

Ms. WODDER. I do. 

Senator BOXER. Do you know of any matters which you may or 

may not have disclosed that might place you in any conflict of interest if you are confirmed? 

Mr. KOPOCIS. No, I do not. 

Ms. WODDER. I do not. 

Senator BOXER. Let me say because I am going to move on and 

let others question, I have a series of questions I will submit for 

the record. 

I cannot imagine two more well qualified people to come before 

us. I am so grateful to both of you because these confirmations 

have headaches attached to them both in terms of everything you 

have to fill out and answer and all the rest of it. It is hard on the 

families who sit there and have to hear some of these comments. 

That is the way it is. 

I just want to thank both of you. I certainly will do everything 

in my power, and I know others feel the same way, to get your confirmations moving forward. 

Senator Boozman, do you have any questions? 

Senator BOOZMAN. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. Go right ahead. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I echo what the Chairman just said. The process is really very 

difficult and I do admire both of you for being willing to put yourself through the process. These are very, very important positions 

and I appreciate you in that regard. 

One of the things, Ms. Wodder, that I am concerned about is we 

have a number of levees in Arkansas and in the past, it appears 

you opposed and have a history of filing lawsuits to prevent upgrades and improvements to the levee system. A classic case I 

think while you were leading the organization, a lawsuit was filed 

to block improvements over 300 miles of levees in Arkansas, Mississippi and Louisiana. 

What I would like to know is due to your forceful advocacy in 

this regard, would you commit to recuse yourself for the entirety 

of your time in this position from any agency decisions that could 

impact the ability of stakeholders in Arkansas such as the core 

State agencies, levee boards, county governments, farmers and 

other private landowners to maintain or improve flood risk management structures such as levees? 

That is pretty broad, but again, it is of great concern. We feel the 

levees have done a great job of flood control and when you look at 

American Rivers, they have a history of not being very friendly in 

that regard. 

82 

Ms. WODDER. Senator Boozman, I appreciate the question. Certainly, we are seeing more and more floods in this Country, they 

are more severe and more frequent. Levees are an important part 

of an overall solution to protect our communities combined with 

other non-structural approaches like wetland restoration and providing rivers some room to spread out. 

To say that levees are not part of it would not be something I 

would agree with. I believe they are a critical part of the overall 

solution to protecting our communities. 

With respect to recusing myself from any possible decisions regarding levees, I certainly understand and have been advised by 

the Ethics Office that I will be recused from any matter that would 

have been in litigation that American Rivers was involved in, I certainly would do that. 

Actually, the organization that I used to lead has only been involved in a very small number of cases, over my 16 and a half 

years, only 16 cases, so it would be a small number from which to 

be recused. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Again, we do have concern about that with 

the history of lawsuits filed by American Rivers. 

Let me ask you about irrigation. American Rivers also worked to 

stop projects important to the survival of farming and rural communities in Arkansas. One example is irrigation projects in the 

State that will allow farmers and other stakeholders to partner 

with each other and provide surface water in a responsible way for 

irrigation. 

American Rivers has worked to halt these efforts. The problem 

is, do we damage our aquifers and let them be depleted causing 

permanent damage, or would the organization prefer to see our 

rural way of life in eastern Arkansas come to an end? I would have 

the same concern of you jumping forward and making important 

decisions in that regard. 

You have commented as to why you wouldn’t recuse yourself in 

that regard, can you comment a bit about irrigation and some of 

these types of projects? 

Ms. WODDER. I can. Again, let me reiterate that in my prior position as American Rivers President I had a job to do and the job for 

which I have been nominated is quite different. With that understanding, I would say American Rivers has a history of working 

collaboratively with irrigation districts. There are projects that 

have been undertaken that have come to very good solutions that 

have met the water security needs of irrigators along with the 

water needs of fish and drinking water. I think there is a balance 

we can strike and with enough effort and goodwill, sitting around 

a table, we can find a solution that works in everyone’s interest. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Just as a response to some of the questions that have been 

raised, I want to put in the record at your request, we held a hearing in the subcommittee on fracking. To respond to Senator 

Inhofe’s point, we do know of damage that has been caused to our 

water supply by the manner in which fracking fluids were handled 

83 

once they returned to the surface. It caused significant challenges 

in Pennsylvania, leading to Senator Casey filing legislation, which 

I have co-sponsored. 

I want the record to reflect that we are concerned that the water 

qualities are maintained through the entire fracking process including how fracking fluids are disposed of. 

Second, if I might respond to the point that Senator Barrasso 

raised on the removal of dams because as I read some of the material, the economic impact of the salmon industry on the west coast 

of the United States is pretty dramatic. There has been a significant decline. Part of that is the belief that the migration of salmon 

has been restricted by dams that have been put up and bringing 

down a limited number has helped salmon regenerate. 

I think we need to take a look at the total economic impact including an industry that is important to our country, the salmon 

industry. I just mention it because I think the record should reflect 

that the actions taken have helped our economy and there is a concern as it relates to fracking. 

To my two questions, first to Mr. Kopocis, I appreciate both your 

written and oral statements concerning the great water bodies. I 

am working on the next generation of the Chesapeake Bay bill 

from the experiences of the last Congress trying to work out some 

of the issues raised. We came close to getting that done, along with 

other great water body bills sponsored by members of this committee. 

Once you are confirmed, will you work with this committee for 

a workable strategy so that we can advance these great water bodies and try to get them done? I know it is a tough political environment but as you point out in your statement, this is one of the 

highest priorities, to protect our great water bodies. 

Mr. KOPOCIS. Yes, Senator. I look forward to working with you, 

your office and other Senators interested in working on the great 

water bodies within the EPA Office of Water. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

To Ms. Wodder, I mentioned in my opening statement the Harriet Tubman Park where we are very proud of being able to preserve the countryside in which Harriet Tubman operated her underground railroad. It is adjacent to the Blackwater Wildlife Refuge 

which is an incredible asset to our community. 

The good news is the local community on the eastern shore of 

Maryland strongly supports the efforts we are making both at 

Blackwater and to establish the Harriet Tubman Park. They look 

at it as an economic advantage, bringing tourists to the eastern 

shore of Maryland, as well as preserving the environmental heritage and the cultural heritage of the eastern shore of Maryland. 

We came close to getting that legislation enacted in the last Congress and I would like to just bring that to your attention and ask 

for your help once you are confirmed to advance those types of 

projects that can add to the great heritage of America and our national park system. 

Ms. WODDER. Senator Cardin, I look forward to working with 

you, your staff, and other members of the committee to advance 

both of the cases you just mentioned. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

84 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

As I listened to the criticism of Ms. Wodder’s experience, I want 

to tell the families, don’t feel offended by the criticism because here 

no good deed goes without punishment. 

I also have to reflect for a moment on the information we have 

about Ms. Wodder’s experience, the 30 years of being with American Rivers and the Wilderness Society. It is established that 

American Rivers helped dozens of communities restore river health 

through conservation projects including river trails. 

I have a letter here that I would like entered into the record. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection. 

[The referenced information was not submitted at time of print.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. This letter is from Eli Lehrer, Vice President of the Heartland Institute. He says the Heartland Institute is 

a national, free market think tank devoted to free markets, limited 

government and sensible regulatory policy. ‘‘I write to you in support of the nomination of Rebecca Wodder as the Assistant Secretary of Interior. I first became familiar with Ms. Wodder’s organization in the debate over national flood insurance program. At all 

times, I found American Rivers staff willing to work for the right 

of central organizations like my own in open, new ideas, and supportive of many free market values.’ It goes on extolling your abilities and the organizations you worked with. ‘‘Quite simply, Ms. 

Wodder’s views on a large number of issues are, in my judgment, 

exactly those that conservatives concerned about our natural environment should endorse.’ 

I come away with this conclusion, that a doctor who is a resident 

might be excluded from using that knowledge, the knowledge 

gained in serving patients, so you have to be careful. Don’t have 

too much experience because it is not always a good thing. You are 

getter off to get a doctor who doesn’t have any experience and take 

a chance. 

The white nose syndrome talked about moments ago is killing 

bats across the country at an unprecedented rate, wiping out more 

than a million bats since first discovered as a disease in 2006. 

What might the consequences be in terms of our economy and environment if we fail to stop the white nose syndrome? 

Ms. WODDER. Senator Lautenberg, I agree with you that bats are 

a very important part of our economy and the ecological fabric of 

the country and this is a serious issue. I know the Fish and Wildlife Service is working hard on it and coordinating with partners 

in other agencies to look into the research, public education, and 

management plans. I think it is an important priority and should 

I be confirmed, I would look forward to working with you and other 

members of the committee on that very important issue. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I authored legislation establishing the 

Great Falls National Historic Park in Patterson, New Jersey. This 

park will serve as an important historic landmark and catalyst to 

the local economy. While the legislation became law in 2009, very 

little progress has been made and I am concerned that in this 

tough budget climate, new parks like Great Falls may not receive 

85 

the attention they deserve. If confirmed, can you help with new 

parks like the Great Falls, move forward? 

Ms. WODDER. I have just begun to be briefed on the Great Falls 

Park. It sounds like a wonderful community that is behind this 

new unit of the National Park system. You are right, we are in 

tough budget times and the resources have to be spread very far. 

I would certainly commit to working with you, with other members 

of the committee, and with people in the community to see if there 

are some creative ways to bring resources to bear to make sure 

that this park gets off to a good start as you hope. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. 

In my closing seconds, I don’t ask that question because I was 

born in Patterson, New Jersey but also, Alexander Hamilton came 

there to start the industrial revolution and used that river water 

very efficiently. Unfortunately, since that time, it has been abused 

and filled with all kinds of bad things. We want to clean up these 

rivers, keep up the work you did with American Rivers and fight 

hard. 

You said in your opening remarks you would serve in all humility and I want you to serve with all aggression. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. Wodder, you recently left American Rivers, do you agree 

with all the public statements you made during your tenure there? 

Ms. WODDER. Again, Senator Barrasso, I had a job to do. I was 

President of an organization, a non-profit organization that advocates for healthy rivers and clean water for all Americans. The positions that I took represented that mission and were on behalf of 

the members of the organization. It was a fairly specific mission, 

just for rivers and clean waters. 

I would like to distinguish between the work I have done in the 

past and the work that I would do should I be confirmed. I do not 

bring an agenda with me. I look forward to the possibility of serving the conservation interest of the Nation. 

Senator BARRASSO. So in terms of some of the statements you 

made, even though to me they may have seemed extreme, you don’t 

really stand by all of them, this was just in that position and that 

job, is that correct? 

Ms. WODDER. I stand by the work that I did in my position as 

President of American Rivers, yes. 

Senator BARRASSO. On August 5, 2007, you were interviewed by 

E, the environment magazine. In the interview, you stated, ‘‘I eat 

almost no beef or pork because of the amount of resources consumed in producing food via cattle or pigs and because I object to 

factory farms.’ Is that your personal view, that you object to factory 

farms or is that the viewpoint expressed by you as a spokesperson 

for American Rivers in terms of your dietary life and issues there? 

Ms. WODDER. There are various elements in your question, Senator. In terms of my dietary preferences, those are personal views, 

but the comment on factory farms would be a comment on behalf 

of American Rivers. 

86 

Senator BARRASSO. On August 5 when asked which environmental groups you most admired and why, you said, ‘‘I’m a huge 

fan of the work of the Center for the New American Dream which 

is offering practical choices for living a more sustainable and high 

quality of life in the United States.’ 

That is an organization that discusses prosperity without growth. 

Though not widely accepted, they say the case is strong that 

growth in the affluent U.S. is now doing more harm than good. You 

also stated in the same interview that you supported Bill 

McKibbens’ book Deep Economies and said, ‘‘I am a strong supporter of his call for a new economic model,’ not for his philosophy. 

You said, ‘‘I am a strong supporter of his call,’ not the organization 

but you are ‘‘a strong supporter of his call for a new economic 

model based on sustainability.’ 

The President talks about growth, a lot of people here in Washington talk about growth and about the 9.2 percent of unemployment in the Country, but you are a strong supporter of a different 

model, a new economic model based on sustainability. 

In his book, he states, ‘‘Growth, at least as we now create it, is 

producing more inequality than prosperity, more insecurity than 

progress.’ I am questioning your support of this new economic 

model and how we have prosperity without economic growth, in 

your opinion. 

Ms. WODDER. Senator, when I had the good fortune of being an 

aide to Senator Gaylord Nelson, he would often say that the same 

concepts underlie both the word economy and ecology. They both 

come from the Greek root word ecos, meaning that to have a 

strong, healthy economy, a thriving country, we need to have the 

natural resources that support that in a sustainable way. I was referring to those kinds of positions in those comments. 

I certainly believe as a mother I want this Country to be strong 

into the future and have both a healthy environment and a strong 

economy. 

Senator BARRASSO. If confirmed, are you going to make decisions 

with the intention of limiting economic growth? Is that the mindset 

you are going to bring? 

Ms. WODDER. If I were to be confirmed that would not be my 

mindset. My two responsibilities, the National Park Service and 

the Fish and Wildlife Service, I would have carefully defined responsibilities through laws passed by the Congress and through 

policies of the Administration. It would be my job to implement the 

policies of this Administration and impartially administer the laws. 

Senator BARRASSO. Yesterday, I got a letter from the National 

Rural Electric Cooperative Association which opposes your nomination. The letter highlights what they describe as ‘‘misguided efforts 

to dismantle our Federal hydropower resource.’ It says you spent 

your ‘‘professional career attempting to eliminate this reliable, affordable, renewable resource from our energy portfolio.’ 

Given American Rivers’ strong objection to hydropower under 

your tenure, how can you make objective decisions at the Interior 

Department regarding hydropower? 

Ms. WODDER. First of all, hydropower is an important part of our 

Nation’s energy source and it can, if it is properly sited and operated and mitigated, can be a green source of energy. My former orVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:21 Apr 10, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\23820.TXT VERN
87 

ganization, American Rivers, worked collaboratively with the National Hydropower Association on legislation that would double the 

amount of hydropower generating capacity in this country. I believe 

that hydropower can and will be an important part of the overall 

energy mix. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

I think it is important to note that if we had more sustainable 

energy, we wouldn’t have to import oil from some of those nations 

that harbor terrorists who attack us, so good for you for pushing 

for sustainability. That is where I am at. 

Now, I am going to call on Senator Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Thank you, nominees, for being here and for your willingness to 

serve. I want to direct a few questions to Mr. Kopocis first. 

Mr. Kopocis, it has come to my attention that under EPA’s long 

term to enhance surface water treatment rule, New York City 

would be required to build a $1.6 billion cover over the 90-acre 

Hillview Reservoir as a measure to reduce micro-bio pathogens 

such as cryptosporidium and giardia in the water supply. 

New York City already undertakes an aggressive water testing 

program with half a million tests on their water supply each year 

for pathogens such as cryptosporidium and giardia. In addition, the 

city’s Department of Environmental Protection has a host of water 

protection programs including multiple chemical treatments, waterfowl management and land and farm planning within the watershed. 

This unfunded requirement would be in addition to the one that 

New York City is already undertaking to install a $1.6 billion ultraviolet treatment system which would kill the very same pathogens. In fact, according to the New York City Department of 

Health, approximately 100 cases of cryptosporidium illness are reported in a given year in a city of over 8 million people. A 2010 

study performed by the New York City Department of Health into 

this issue did not cite the Hillview Reservoir as a source of concern. 

I support aggressive efforts to protect the public health and well 

being of all New Yorkers, but given the President’s call to ease 

overly burdened regulations, do you support amending rules like 

LT-II, the Surface Water Treatment Rule when the evidence clearly 

suggests there is little public health benefit to compliance? 

Mr. KOPOCIS. Thank you for the question, Senator. 

I have recently become aware of the situation in New York. I 

have worked with representatives from New York City and New 

York State concerning New York City’s water supply, the protection of the watershed, how it has served as a model for protecting 

watersheds used as drinking water, and for other sources as well, 

and how communities can take matters into their own hands to 

make sure their water supplies are provided in a safe and sufficient quantity as well for the community. 

The application of the LT-II rule I am not particularly familiar 

with but I would be happy to work with you and your office to become more familiar with the circumstances in New York, and 

would welcome that opportunity if I am confirmed. 

88 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you very much. I look forward to 

working with you on that. 

The second issue I want to bring your attention to is obviously 

we are in a very grave economic climate and we all have to tighten 

our belts and reduce spending where we can, but some investments 

provide short term and long term growth. One of those investments 

very important to New York is the investment in sewer systems 

and water infrastructure systems. 

New York State has billions of dollars of unmet sewer and water 

treatment system needs that are going unmet today. We have had 

sewer failure, we have had water main breaks from aging, we have 

had overflow issues and we do suffer from an aging infrastructure 

with many of the sewers built between 50 and 75 years ago. 

I just want to urge you to be mindful of the great need we have 

with water infrastructure in New York State. Such investments 

can be significant economic engines, both for short term and long 

term growth, and water quality and sustainability for each community. 

Mr. KOPOCIS. Thank you. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. To Ms. Wodder, I wanted to thank you 

again for your testimony and thank you for your public service and 

your interest in serving in our Administration. 

I wanted to just echo the comments of my colleague, Senator 

Cardin, on the importance of the Harriet Tubman Park system. I 

think it is going to make an extraordinary difference to our communities, for historic preservation and also for education of our children and the next generation. It is also a great economic engine for 

our regions because of the tourism that is created, the tourism opportunities to a part of these historic sites. 

I just want to echo his comments on the importance of establishing this historic site and this park. I look forward to working 

with you on that. 

The second issue I wanted to highlight for you is that Congressman Hinchey and I have been working over the last couple Congresses on a natural resource study for the Hudson Valley as a 

Federal initiative to look toward preservation and a national park 

for this study. I am hoping you can work with us on that as another project of significance for both preservation and accessibility 

and have a Federal role in that establishment. 

Last, I just want to work with your office to make sure that we 

can be a resource since your mandate is so important to New York 

State. 

Ms. WODDER. Thank you. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Welcome to both of you and thanks so much for 

your willingness to take on these responsibilities if confirmed. 

Thanks for being willing to go through the nomination process. 

Having been nominated as Governor to serve on the Amtrak Board 

of Directors, I remember frankly, it wasn’t a lot of fun, filling out 

all the paperwork and all the disclosures. It took a long time and 

I appreciate your willingness to go through the process, including 

today’s hearing and your preparation for that. 

89 

I feel our two nominees today have been nominated for positions 

that are important to EPA and important to the Department of Interior and I think important to our country. It is my sincere hope 

that we can move forward expeditiously on both. 

Mr. Kopocis is a familiar face, a welcome face. So is yours, but 

you are not as familiar to us, as you know, but we have worked 

with this guy for a long time. I think I speak for most of my colleagues in believing that you would offer to the position for which 

you have been nominated a lot of experience in water issues and 

also in the history of getting things done here in Washington. On 

a good day, it is hard to get anything done as you know. 

I am pleased to say that I appreciate the time you spent with us 

yesterday and am pleased to be able to support your nomination. 

If you do get confirmed, and there is a good chance you will, hopefully we will have a chance to work with you. 

For Ms. Wodder, as I said earlier, I think you have been nominated to work in an important position. I think you would oversee 

two divisions, as I understand it, within the Department, the Fish 

and Wildlife Service and National Park Service, is that correct? 

Ms. WODDER. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. Which one is the more important? You can tell 

me later at the end. I think we both agree they are both important. 

I was a naval flight officer years ago, a House member and Governor of Delaware, and now I have supported efforts to protect endangered species like horseshoe crabs and protection of their habitat. I am confident that you will work to protect the spirit of the 

letter of the Endangered Species Act. 

As you may know, Ms. Wodder, Delaware is the only State that 

doesn’t have a national park. I don’t know if anyone has mentioned 

that to you. I just want to say that I hope with your help and the 

help of my colleagues here in the Senate and over at the House, 

we hope to change that. 

A couple of years ago the National Park Service was good enough 

to, I think in the previous George W. Bush administration, finish 

the special resources study that recommended a national park in 

Delaware. They came up with a theme. He said what makes Delaware unique is the early colonial settlement leading up to the ratification of the Constitution in 1787. He said, that is your schtick, 

that is what makes you stand out, the early settlement by the 

Swedes, by the Dutch, by the Finns, the work by William Penn 

which led to the establishment of the town of Newcastle. 

In fact, the penman of the revolution lived in Dover. Caesar Rodney rode his horse all the way from Dover, Delaware to Philadelphia I think on July 1, 1776 in order to cast the tie-breaking vote 

in favor of the Declaration of Independence. We ratified the Constitution in 1787 before anyone else. For one whole week, Delaware 

was the entire United States of America. Then we opened it up and 

let in the others. 

Some days we question whether we should have done that. No, 

for most days, we think it worked out pretty well. 

I have introduced legislation again in this Congress with the Department of Interior, actually with the support of Ken Salazar, a 

former colleague, to try to create a national park in our State. We 

90 

look forward to working with you to make this national park in the 

first State a reality. 

If I can, a question for Ms. Wodder, Secretary Salazar has stated 

he supports creating a national park in the first State. I would ask 

Ms. Wodder if you would work with us, with me and my colleagues 

and our delegation, if you are confirmed to see how we can make 

this park a reality in this Congress? 

Ms. WODDER. Should I be confirmed, I would look forward to 

working with you toward that end. 

Senator CARPER. That was a really good answer. 

If confirmed as the Assistant Secretary, what would be your top 

priorities during your tenure besides the national park for Delaware? 

Ms. WODDER. Other than that, within the Fish and Wildlife Service, I have been receiving briefings and learning about the issues 

and challenges before the Service. One of the things that seems to 

be a top priority for the Service is determining how to do a better 

job of implementing the Endangered Species Act, to make it less 

complex and less contentious and thereby, more effective. That 

seems to me to be an important thing to do. We have a great backlog of species threatened with extinction. 

The Service is clearly a dedicated group of individuals who are 

committed to doing the job well and need to have the ability to do 

that based on the best science and in conjunction with their partners in State and local agencies and other stakeholders. That 

would be a priority to make sure the Endangered Species Act is 

working well. 

With respect to the National Park Service, I would say that I 

really can’t put a top priority on that, I have been learning about 

so many different important issues, including the one you raised of 

Delaware not having a national park. They all strike me as highly 

worthy and I hope to be supportive of the great work of the National Park Service as well. 

Senator CARPER. Madam Chairman, thank you for that extra 1 

minute and 19 seconds. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

We are going to do only one round of questioning. Senator Inhofe 

had to leave at 3 p.m. and I have to leave now and get to a 4 p.m., 

so I am not going to ask my questions, I am going to put them in 

the record and we will leave room for all colleagues to put their 

questions in the record. 

Senator BOOZMAN. I would like unanimous consent that this letter from the coops be in the record and also a statement in the 

record. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, sir. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

91 


23820.064

.. 

National Rural Electric 

Cooperative Association AT~Ii.nttgy'Coope<atlve~-

Senator Barbara Boxer, Chairman 

July 19,2011 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Senator Jim Inhofe, Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senators: 

Glenn English ChiefExeculiveOfficer 

On behalf of America's electric cooperatives, I am writing today opposing the 

nomination of Rebecca Wodder for Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 

The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) represents more 

than 900 not-for-profit electric cooperatives providing retail electric service to more than 

42 million consumers in 4 7 states. Millions of electric cooperative consumers rely on the 

affordable, renewable hydropower marketed by the federal Power Marketing 

Administrations (PMAs). The PMA hydropower projects serve multiple purposes that 

help drive the economies of many states. As Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and 

Parks, Ms. Wodder would have great influence over the positions taken by the 

Department of Interior, which has broad jurisdiction over many areas impacting dam 

operations. 

Because of the importance of the Power Marketing Administrations to our 

economy, we are strongly opposed to the nomination of Ms. Wodder. Since 1995, Ms. 

Wodder has served as President of American Rivers, an organization that has made dam 

removal a central part of its mission. During her tenure, she led efforts to remove the 

Lower Snake River dams in the Pacific Northwest and opposed the Obama 

Administration's Biological Opinion for salmon recovery in the Columbia and Snake 

Rivers. Given her long tenure at an organization with a strong bias for dam removal, her 

objectivity on issues affecting federal hydropower facilities is questionable. 

NRECA has long opposed misguided efforts to dismantle our federal hydropower 

resource. Unfortunately, Ms. Wodder has spent her professional career attempting to 

eliminate this reliable, affordable, renewable resource from our energy portfolio. 
92 


23820.065

Accordingly, we urge you to oppose the nomination of Ms. Wodder for Assistant 

Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

cc: 

Senator Lamar Alexander 

Senator John Barrasso 

Senator Max Baucus 

Senator John Boozman 

Senator Ben Cardin 

Senator Tom Carper 

Senator Mike Crapo 

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand 

Senator Mike Johanns 

Senator Frank Lautenberg 

Senator Jeff Merkley 

Senator Bernard Sanders 

Senator Tom Udall 

Senator Jeff Sessions 

Senator David Vitter 

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse 

;_=~~LA Glenn English 
93 

Senator BOXER. So here is where we are. I am looking forward 

to your swift confirmation. I want to tell you something. The National Park Service runs an incredible program surrounding Alcatraz, a national park. I have never seen anything so fabulous and 

the amount of tourism that comes there, so you are in a position 

to really help this economy by preserving the parks, by preserving 

the wildlife. 

Let me say I apologize for some of the questions you were asked, 

frankly, because I think they were confusing your personal views 

with the role you had. As I said, I was very different when I was 

a stockbroker. My whole goal was to make money for my clients. 

My goal now in my new job is public service, so it is very different. 

When you are in an advocacy role, it is very different when you 

work for the President where you carry out his priorities in the 

way he wants you to, according to the law and the science. We 

thank you very, very much. 

We also honor your families. 

We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:48 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

We have two significant nominations before our committee today. 

The first, Mr. Kopocis, has been nominated to lead the EPA’s Office of Water. If 

confirmed, he would have primary responsibility over the Clean Water Act, the Safe 

Drinking Water, and various other important laws. 

The second, Ms. Wodder, has been nominated to be Assistant Secretary of the Department of Interior, where she would oversee the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and 

the National Parks Service. Second only to Secretary Salazar, she would have significant control over the Endangered Species Act and other Federal laws and policies. 

I look forward to hearing from both witnesses today. 

As the Ranking Republican on the Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife, both of 

these nominations are very important to me. They are also important because both 

positions are critically important to, and can have serious implications for, my state. 

Mr. Kopocis, you are stepping into a difficult task. There are several controversial 

issues about which you will be required to make decisions. As you know, Congress 

has repeatedly refused to enact legislation that would expand the scope of the jurisdictional term, ‘‘waters of the United States,’’ which is so fundamental to the framework of the Clean Water Act. 

The Supreme Court has ruled on the matter several times, and each time it has 

recognized that the Clean Water Act does not give the EPA or the Corps unlimited 

jurisdiction over the waters in our Nation. 

However, EPA has decided to go around the Congress by proposing a guidance 

document that, in my view, vastly expands what should be considered ‘‘waters of 

the United States.’’ 

Last month, I joined over 40 senators in a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson urging her to abandon any further action on this guidance document. 

In addition, Mr. Kopocis, you are aware of EPA’s efforts to regulate pesticides 

through the Clean Water Act. 

I understand that this effort was brought on by a Federal court decision, but I 

still believe that the use of FIFRA-compliant, government-approved pesticides 

should not require EPA permitting under the Clean Water Act. 

This issue is very important to farmers, foresters, public health agencies, small 

businesses, and others who use pesticides. 

The House of Representatives recently passed a bill, by a vote of 292–130, clarifying that the use of these pesticides does not require EPA permitting under the 

Clean Water Act. And just a few weeks ago, the Senate Agriculture Committee 

voted the same bill out of committee with bi-partisan support. I am urging my colleagues to allow this important bill to come to the floor for a vote. 

94 

Ms. Wodder, you have been nominated to an important position. As you may 

know, Alabama also has several national parks, such as the Little River Canyon National Preserve; dozens of national historic landmarks; and more than 1,200 places 

on the National Register of Historic Places. Your role in overseeing the National 

Parks would be very important to my state. 

But perhaps more important to my State would be your role in overseeing the 

Fish & Wildlife Service. 

My constituents in Alabama have frequent interactions with the Fish & Wildlife 

Service. Alabama has more species on the Endangered Species List than any other 

state, except California and Hawaii. 

We have over 120 species on the list. As a result, many Federal, state, and even 

private activities in my State require some degree of interaction and consultation 

with your agency. 

I need to be sure that the person who oversees the Fish & Wildlife Service is 

qualified, fair and impartial, and does not have a far-left agenda that would prevent 

them from faithfully fulfilling the law, without unreasonable delay. 

Ms. Wodder, I am very concerned about your nomination. You have spent the past 

30 years as an environmental activist. You have never managed a large budget or 

large organization. You have not demonstrated the kind of experience and background that is normally expected for this job. And many of your past statements 

call into question whether you can fairly and impartially fulfill the obligations of 

the position to which you have been nominated. 

But I am open to considering your nomination and learning more about your 

background this morning. 

I look forward to the opportunity to ask questions. 

Thank you. 

Æ