U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

85–225PDF 2014

S. HRG. 112–820 

NOMINATION OF DANIEL M. ASHE TO BE 

DIRECTOR OF THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE 

SERVICE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 15, 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, Arizona 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

FEBRUARY 15, 2011 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma ................... 2 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland .............. 5 

Crapo, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho ................................... 7 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ......... 8 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming ........................ 10 

Merkley, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon ............................... 11 

Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ........................... 12 

Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana ............................ 13 

Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas ........................ 15 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ........ 15 

Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico ........................... 16 

WITNESS 

Ashe, Daniel M., Nominated by President Obama to be Director, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service ............................................................................................. 18 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ................................................................................................... 39 

Senator Inhofe .................................................................................................. 41 

Senator Crapo ................................................................................................... 54 

Senator Lautenberg .......................................................................................... 57 

Senator Barrasso .............................................................................................. 59 

Senator Merkley ............................................................................................... 67 

Senator Vitter ................................................................................................... 71 

Senator Udall .................................................................................................... 88 

Senator Session ................................................................................................. 91 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Interagency Consultation Involving Longhead 

Sea Turtles, as of February 23, 2011 ................................................................ 93–131 

List of Publications, Testimonies and Speeches ................................................ 132–137 

(1) 

NOMINATION OF DANIEL M. ASHE TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE 

SERVICE 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

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

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer, (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Baucus, Lautenberg, Cardin, 

Whitehouse, Udall, Merkley, Vitter, Barrasso, Crapo and Boozman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Today, the Senate Committee on Environment 

and Public Works will consider the nomination of Dan Ashe to be 

Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

During his more than 15-year career with the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Mr. Ashe has held a wide variety of positions that have 

given him a deep understanding of the Agency he is being asked 

to lead. Dan Ashe currently serves as the Deputy Director. 

Since joining the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1995, he has also 

served as Science Advisor to the Director, where he advised the 

Service Director and provided leadership on use of science within 

the Agency. He has served as Chief of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, where he was responsible for directing operations and 

management of the more than 150 million acre refuge system. He 

served as Assistant Director for External Affairs. 

Dan Ashe’s broad experience with the Fish and Wildlife Service 

makes him uniquely qualified to deal with the many challenges the 

Service faces today. Mr. Ashe’s knowledge and appreciation of the 

Fish and Wildlife Service developed well before serving in leadership positions with the Agency. His dad was also a career Fish and 

Wildlife Service employee. Mr. Ashe spent his childhood visiting 

many of the national treasures that the Service is charged with 

protecting. 

I know family always plays an important role in our achievements. I would like to welcome members of Dan Ashe’s family who 

have joined us here today. His wife, Barbara, raise your hand. His 

daughter, Mary. Welcome. Unfortunately, son Michael is busy preparing for his college mid-terms and couldn’t join us. 
2 

Mr. Ashe, as you know, the task you have been asked to undertake is very important. The Fish and Wildlife Service is the guardian of natural treasures and species in every single State of the 

Union. In my own State of California, the Service has responsibility 

for iconic species, like the bald eagle, and the California condor, 

and irreplaceable wildlife refuges like the ones in San Francisco 

Bay and San Diego. I have to say that these irreplaceable environmental gems are the keystone to our tourist industry, and the 

many, many millions of jobs that rely on a pristine environment in 

our State. 

So you support, the Service supports tourism and recreation that 

boosts local economies in California and across this Country. 

In 2006, according to a national survey of fishing, hunting and 

wildlife associated recreation, hunting, fishing and wildlife related 

activities provided $8 billion to the California economy, and more 

than $122 billion to the national economy, equaling roughly 1 percent of our Nation’s GDP. The Outdoor Industry Association estimates that outdoor recreation contributes $730 billion to the U.S. 

economy. It is responsible for 1 out of every 20 jobs. 

Mr. Ashe, you have been nominated to lead an agency that not 

only maintains safeguards for our Nation’s iconic species, but it 

also plays this key role in supporting a multi-billion dollar wildlife 

related economy. When I said at the beginning that our Committee 

is really focused a great deal on economy and jobs, your position 

really is an example of good stewardship relating directly to these 

jobs. 

The health of our environment and the success of our economy 

go hand in hand. The job isn’t easy. There will be controversy and 

difficult decisions. But I expect that you will follow the law and the 

best science in your decisionmaking. 

At the beginning of this Administration, President Obama took 

important steps to restore scientific integrity and committed to uphold the Endangered Species Act. The President’s priorities have 

been echoed by Secretary Salazar. Today, I look forward to hearing 

how, if confirmed, you will fulfill these commitments at the Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Strong leadership is needed to protect and 

preserve our Nation’s treasures and to confront the pressing problems facing our Nation’s fish and wildlife. 

Your record as a committed conservationist and your many years 

of experience with the Fish and Wildlife Service in my opinion are 

strong qualifications for this important position. I look forward to 

hearing from you today and your swift confirmation. 

I will call on the Ranking Member. 

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

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Welcome to our witness here. I had a chance to visit with Mr. 

Ashe. This Committee is a huge jurisdiction. One of the things that 

I believe we are concerned with as much as any other jurisdiction 

is the Fish and Wildlife. There is not a person up here, Democrat 

or Republican, that doesn’t have people coming with ideas and with 

complaints. A lot of the programs that we have done were the right 

programs. 
3 

As I told you in my office several weeks ago, I think that it is 

important that a director have a background as you have. You have 

been the Assistant Director, and the other positions that the Chairman mentioned. I think that is important. I think you understand 

the role. 

But there are some recent things that I am very concerned about. 

I shared my concerns before about the recent decisions made by the 

Service that in my view put politics before sound science and the 

welfare of species. Unfortunately, I think you may have inherited 

a problem here that you are going to have to address, because you 

are the boss. You are going to be the Director if you are confirmed. 

On the point of the Endangered Species Act, as a tool to regulate 

global warming, I am going to ask Mr. Ashe about the Service’s recently issued climate change strategic plan which States, among 

other things, ‘‘The future of fish and wildlife and people hangs in 

the balance.’’ That is kind of scary, which is consistent with everything else that they are doing, with the scary talk. It also calls on 

the Service to transform its basic mission, stating that it should 

‘‘examine everything we do, every decision we make, every dollar 

we spend though the lens of climate change. 

Where did that come from? We will give you a chance to answer 

that, and your participation in that, Mr. Ashe. Because you and I 

really didn’t talk about that before. 

But I look at the ones that preceded you, they were concerned 

about sound science, about the wildlife services. I am talking about 

Dale Hall, the deceased Sam Hamilton, these people have done 

really a great job. There is no reason that you can’t follow in their 

footsteps and do the same thing, absent these outside influences 

that are going to try to change the whole function of what Fish and 

Wildlife is supposed to be doing. 

Now, some of my colleagues have concerns about your nominations based primarily on your level of involvement in recent controversial listing decisions made by Fish and Wildlife. I know that 

Senator Barrasso is concerned about that. I am, too. 

I am also concerned about a process, two things that I really like 

about the system. One is the Partnership Program. I think, you 

have to refresh my memory, I know that Dale Hall was out in 

Oklahoma when we had that. You may have been there in a different capacity, when we actually held a hearing in my State of 

Oklahoma on the successes of the Partnership Program. That is 

getting with the land owners, the stakeholders, oil and gas, and 

these people, and talking about how they can do things to improve 

the environment, conservation. It is a recognition that, I know out 

in Western Oklahoma, we have many of our farmers and ranchers 

out there, they want a clean environment. They have ideas, and we 

should be listening to them. That is what the Partnership program 

is all about. 

Now, you and I have talked about that. This Candidate Conservation Agreement, I believe this is going to be circumvented. It 

is going to be up to you to make sure you don’t allow those forces 

to force you into something you don’t really believe in. 

So I am concerned about that and we will take this very seriously. I am concerned that you are being put in a very awkward 
4 

situation right now. We will try to make the best of it, and hopefully we will be successful. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[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 the nomination of Dan Ashe for Director of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. In this capacity, he would be responsible for overseeing 

many programs of great importance within this Committee’s jurisdiction, such as 

the Endangered Species Act and the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. 

Mr. Ashe has spent the majority of his career with the Service; and, I would note, 

he also spent much of his childhood on wildlife refuges, helping his father who also 

worked with the Service. 

I met with Mr. Ashe in my office last month, and we had a very honest discussion 

about the direction of the Fish and Wildlife Service. I shared my concerns about recent decisions made by the Service that in my view put politics before sound science 

and the welfare of species. I asked him to commit to me that he would make decisions based on the best available science, and avoid using the Endangered Species 

Act as a tool to regulate global warming. 

On that point, I will ask Mr. Ashe about the Service’s recently issued climate 

change strategic plan, which states, among other things, that the ‘‘future of fish and 

wildlife and people hangs in the balance.’’ It also calls on the Service to transform 

its basic mission, stating that it should ‘‘examine everything we do, every decision 

we make, and every dollar we spend through the lens of climate change.’’ This is 

troubling to say the least, and I hope, Mr. Ashe, you can explain what it means. 

Your interpretation of that document is important. It leads to my next point. I 

would like your assurance today that, as Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, 

you will continue in the tradition of former directors, Dale Hall and the recently deceased Sam Hamilton. They were admirable in that they reasonably and objectively 

considered the best science available. They were able to put politics aside and bring 

a good measure of balance to their decisionmaking. 

Now some of my colleagues have concerns about your nomination based primarily 

on your level of involvement in recent controversial listing decisions made by the 

Fish and Wildlife Service. I will certainly listen to those concerns, and I will also 

give you the opportunity to address them. As with any nomination, there is a process, a back-and-forth between the nominee and senators. I will do what I can to facilitate that process. 

As I’m sure you know, Mr. Ashe, the decision to designate a species and its habitat as threatened or endangered should not be taking lightly. As head of the Service, 

you would be under constant legal pressure from environmental groups to list as 

many species as possible, but I ask for your assurance that, if you are confirmed, 

you will always keep in mind the impacts on local communities, land use, jobs, and 

our economy that result from these decisions. 

Despite controversies over listing decisions, I believe the Fish and Wildlife Service 

does a great deal of good—especially when it uses collaborative approaches between 

the Federal Government and private land owners, instead of punitive mandates. 

The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program is a great example of what collaboration 

can achieve. This program conserves habitats by leveraging Federal funds through 

voluntary private landowner participation. As you know, I do have some concerns 

about how these designated funds have been used. 

This is a very important position, one that requires decisionmaking on issues that 

have profound impacts on the wildlife that we all treasure, but also on our local 

communities and the jobs that support them. I look forward to your testimony, and 

hope that we can address Senators’ concerns about the ESA and some of the decisions you made during your tenure at the Service. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

I just want to go over, in order of arrival on our side, Senators 

Sanders and Gillibrand have left. So this is the order. Cardin, Lautenberg, Merkley, Baucus, Whitehouse, Udall. On the Republican 

side, Crapo, Barrasso and Vitter. 

So we will go to Senator Cardin. 
5 

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

FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Madam Chair, thank you very much. 

Let me thank you also on the organization. I look forward to 

chairing the subcommittee in this Congress for the Water and 

Wildlife, as I did in the last Congress. I personally want to thank 

Senator Crapo for all his help. It looks like Senator Crapo is moving on to the Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health as 

Ranking. I am sorry we will not have a chance to work directly together, but I look forward to continuing our commitment on water 

and wildlife. You were a great partner. 

I also want to acknowledge Tom Strickland, who is in the room, 

the Assistant Secretary, who will be leaving very, very shortly, as 

I understand. I just want to thank you for your public service and 

your help on our agenda in this Committee, and the Subcommittee. 

You are going to be missed, and the incredible public service that 

you have provided this Nation. We wish you only the best. 

Madam Chair, I also would like to point out, there will be another change on the Subcommittee, and that is the Chief Staff for 

the Water and Wildlife Committee, Sarah Greenberger will also be 

leaving and moving on to the executive branch. I want to thank her 

publicly for her incredible work in our Subcommittee. She carried 

the load, and I think we had a very productive 2 years in large 

measure due to Sarah Greenberger’s work. I wish her only the 

best. 

I want to welcome Dan Ashe and his family to our Committee 

and thank him for his public service and his willingness to continue to serve the public. I want to welcome Barbara. I also want 

to welcome Mary, his daughter. Sorry Michael could not be here. 

We know he is studying for mid-terms. 

I also want to acknowledge Barbara’s work as the vice president 

of the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce. She is here also 

with G.G. Goodwin, who is a good friend. We welcome both to our 

Committee. As you can tell, Madam Chairman, Dan Ashe is a 

Marylander, and we are very proud of his residence in our State 

and very proud of his service to our community, his family’s service 

to our community and his service to our Nation. 

This is a very important position, the position of Director of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife. It is important for our economy, it is important for our natural heritage. Just to mention one of the major 

areas, national wildlife refuge, it is responsible for $1.7 billion to 

our local economy, and 27,000 private sector jobs, just that one 

area that falls under your jurisdiction. 

I am particularly proud of the work that we have done together 

in the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, which is so important 

to the Chesapeake Bay, the wetlands that are contained there, to 

the American Bald Eagle, is a tourist destination, along with the 

Harriet Tubman Historical Landscape, which brings in around $28 

million to the Dorchester County economy alone. That is a relatively small economy. And $28 million is a huge part of the economic impact. 

So your portfolio is very important to the people of Dorchester 

County, MD, and our Nation. We need a strategic leader, a person 

who will look to science to base policy, an effective manager of 
6 

scarce resources. That person, Madam Chairman, is Dan Ashe, and 

I am proud that he is willing to put himself forward. 

He has an undergraduate degree in biology, a graduate degree in 

marine affairs, 13 years as a committee staffer in the House of 

Representatives, 15 years in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, including 

Chief of the National Wildlife Refuge System. He currently holds 

the Deputy Director position. 

When he was Chief of the National Wildlife Refuge System, he 

helped us in regard to the Patuxent National Wildlife Refuge and 

the expansion of that area substantially. As science advisor, he 

helped us in restoring the Patuxent Wildlife Science Center, which 

has helped our Maryland economy. 

Dan has an incredible track record of successful work to help in 

Maryland and around the Nation. As science advisor, he developed 

strategic efforts to confront the impact of climate change. I think 

that is what we want to see. We want to see policy that is based 

upon good science. I believe that Dan follows, I know he follows in 

his family tradition, as you pointed out, as his father is a career 

employee and helped establish the Chesapeake Bay program. 

So we are very proud of the Ashe family and very proud that 

Dan is willing to follow. We think he si the right person, a true 

professional, and will put the public interest first. I am pleased to 

welcome him to the committee and urge that we swiftly consider 

and approve his confirmation. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF MARYLAND

Madame Chairman, I want to use my time this morning to introduce President 

Obama’s nominee to be the next Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, this 

Nation’s leading wildlife conservation organization. 

Dan Ashe and his lovely wife, Barbara, who is also with us today, have been 

Maryland residents and local leaders in Montgomery County since 1983. I know 

Barbara’s tremendous work and leadership in the county as Executive Vice President of the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce. Her colleague, the Chamber’s President, Gigi Godwin, is also in attendance today. 

Dan and Barbara’s two children, Mary and Michael, are graduates of Montgomery 

County Public Schools. Mary is here today. A graduate of Carnegie Mellon University, we’re proud she has brought her Master’s Degree in engineering back to Maryland, and is volunteering in our schools to encourage our younger students to study 

math, science and technology. 

Michael is busy preparing for his mid-terms, so he couldn’t be here today, but we 

wish him luck! 

While we are extremely proud of Dan and his family’s contributions to Maryland, 

it is his professional background and proven capacity to lead that make him so 

qualified for the position to which he is nominated. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service is charged with conserving, developing, and managing the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources. That mission is critically important 

to this country’s natural heritage but also to our economy and way of life. National 

Wildlife Refuges, for example, provide critical habitat for cherished species and a 

place to hunt, fish and bird watch; a place to take our children and grandchildren 

to pass on skills and an appreciation for this country’s wild places and wildlife. They 

also generate nearly $1.7 billion annually for local economies and support 27,000 

private sector jobs. 

The Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, established in 1933 as a sanctuary for 

migrating waterfowl, plays that kind of role in Maryland. Blackwater has been recognized internationally as a ‘‘Wetlands of International Importance’’ by the Ramsar 

Convention and an Internationally Important Bird Area. Blackwater also has the 

largest breeding population of American bald eagles on the East Coast, north of 

Florida. 
7 

The Refuge has become a tourist destination and—along with the Harriet Tubman 

Historic Landscape—is providing a positive economic impact of approximately $28 

million to the economy of Dorchester County. The tourists the refuge attracts to the 

heart of Chesapeake country create jobs for the county’s residents. 

But our refuges, like Blackwater, are under growing pressure both from lack of 

resources and from a changing environment. Over time, Blackwater’s wetlands have 

been greatly affected by several factors including climate change. According to a 

2008 Society for Wetland Scientists report, Blackwater is losing on average 300 

acres per year due to rising water levels, with 5,000 acres of marshland lost since 

the 1930’s (see chart). This is a story that is playing out across the country as the 

habitat within refuges changes or is lost and species’ migratory patterns change. 

Given these challenges, the Service needs a strategic leader. One that looks to the 

best science to direct the Services’ too limited resources in conserving, protecting 

and managing our Nation’s most cherished resources like those at Blackwater. Dan 

has proven that he is that kind of leader and has the right kind of experience to 

get the job done. 

He has an undergraduate degree in Biology; a graduate degree in marine affairs; 

13 years experience as a Committee staffer in the U.S. House of Representatives; 

15 years in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, including serving as Chief of the National Wildlife Refuge System, Science Advisor to the Director, and currently, Deputy Director. 

When Dan was Refuge System Chief, I worked with him on several acquisitions 

for the Patuxent National Wildlife Refuge and witnessed his tireless approach to 

conservation of America’s public lands. 

As Science Advisor, I personally saw his vision as he helped shape a critical restoration and revitalization for the Patuxent Wildlife Science Center, an effort that 

has been crucially important to the advancement of conservation science and to the 

economy of Maryland. 

In that position, Dan also lead the Service’s effort to develop a strategic plan for 

confronting the impacts a changing climate is having and will have on our refuge 

system and trust species. 

As is clear from Blackwater, the Service cannot fulfill its mandate to conserve, 

protect and manage refuges and the wildlife that live in and migrate through them, 

without taking into account the impacts climate change will have on those resources. To turn a blind eye to these dramatic impacts (see chart) would be ineffective and irresponsible. 

Through his work on that policy and other efforts in his career, Dan Ashe has 

proven that he has the experience and capability to deal with difficult issues, but 

to do so while also developing lasting relationships. 

Dan has the support of a great breadth of environmental, conservation, hunting, 

and fishing organizations such as the Boone and Crockett Club, Ducks Unlimited, 

American Sportfishing Association, and Defenders of Wildlife. He has the support 

of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, illustrating his capacity to build 

critically important relationships with the States. 

Dan has a lifetime relationship with the Service. His father, Bill Ashe, was a 37- 

year career employee who reached the rank of northeast deputy regional director, 

and led the effort to establish the Service’s Chesapeake Bay program. 

Dan Ashe’s demonstrated leadership at the Fish and Wildlife Service and his commitment to science-driven decisions make him the ideal person to serve as Director. 

It’s my pleasure to introduce this citizen of the great State of Maryland and to support Dan’s nomination as Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee and in the Senate 

to swiftly move his nomination forward. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Crapo. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF IDAHO 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Senator Boxer and Mr. 

Ashe, welcome. 

I appreciated the opportunity you and I had to visit in my office 

a couple of weeks ago. As you know from that visit, my highest priority with regard to Fish and Wildlife is resolving the wolf issue 
8 

in Idaho, as well as in the rest of the Country. Not that there 

aren’t a lot of other issues, but that one is paramount at this point. 

As you well know, the wolf was introduced to the Northern Rockies in the 1990s. Since that time, it has flourished, to the point 

where not only has it recovered, but it is continuing, the wolf populations are continuing to grow literally unrestrained. The damage 

they are doing to our elk herds, our big game herds, as well as our 

domestic wildlife, our livestock, is increasing. I know that you very 

well know that this is becoming a huge issue, not just in Idaho, but 

in a number of other States. 

Despite the fact that Idaho has done everything it has been 

asked to do under the law, and is in a position right now to manage the wolf, it has been denied that opportunity, primarily because of the inflexibility of the Endangered Species Act, in my opinion. I probably am going to be called away from this hearing to another hearing before I am going to get a chance to ask you some 

specific questions about that, so I will ask my questions, I will submit my questions to you if I am not here. 

But primarily, I want to, as a matter of record, just get your answers to some of the questions we discussed in my office, and to 

again, use this opportunity to encourage you to make it a priority 

for you, in your operations, to resolve this issue. We have too many 

States and too many people who are really hurting right now because of this issue. I am hopeful that we can develop a multi-faceted and effective and prompt solution to the issue. 

So again, if I don’t get a chance to ask you the specific questions, 

they are not going to be a surprise because we have already talked 

about them. I am just going to ask to try to get some of your answers on the record and then work with you as we move forward 

to resolve the issue. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Crapo, we will do everything to expedite 

the answers, so that we can move along. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, and Madam Chairman, I am also 

aware that you are involved in working with some of us on this 

issue. We really appreciate your willingness to work with us to 

help find a solution. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. Since you have thanked me, I want 

to thank Senator Baucus, Senator Cardin and others who also are 

trying very hard, and Senator Tester, to work this out. On your 

side, Senator Risch and others. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. OK. We will turn to Senator Lautenberg. 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and congratulations for getting us organized so quickly. That is rare 

around here. We are happy that it was done. 

I begin by congratulating our witness on his nomination to serve 

as the next Director of the National Fish and Wildlife Service. Dan 

Ashe is a strong candidate to lead this critical Agency, having inherited the zest and the zeal that he has from his father and his 

good work. He has held multiple positions with Fish and Wildlife 
9 

during the past 15 years. Mr. Ashe is going to need to call upon 

this experience to confront major challenges, like the white nose 

syndrome that affects the bats. It is a fungus, and could wipe out 

much of our country’s bat population. 

During the past two winters, more than 1 million hibernating 

bats have died, including hundreds at New Jersey’s Hibernia Mine. 

I visited that mine shaft a long time ago, and there was a robust 

population of bats there. I was very comfortable with them. A recent visitor told us that the floor of the mine was covered with 

dead bats, thousands of them. 

It is a serious problem, it is a major threat to an entire ecosystem, with the potential to cause serious environmental and economic problems. Bats are one of nature’s exterminators, and help 

to protect the public health and our crops. They prey mostly, almost exclusively on insects such as mosquitos, which spread disease, and moths and beetles which damage crops. A single bat can 

eat half its body weight in insects in a single night, and an entire 

colony will consume hundreds of millions of these insects. 

In the previous Congress, I hosted several briefings on this issue, 

requested and received a hearing in Senator Cardin’s subcommittee, and secured more than a million dollars to research the 

white nose syndrome. But we have to do more, which is why today 

I am introducing the Wildlife Diseases Emergency Act. This bill 

will help Fish and Wildlife Service strengthen its response to outbreaks like the white nose syndrome, by improving its coordination 

with our Agencies and State governments. 

My legislation would also help provide more resources to address 

wildlife disease emergencies. I thank Senators Sanders and Leahy 

from Vermont for joining me in introducing this legislation. 

Disease is just one of the threats putting pressure on our wildlife. We recently learned that 2010 tied 2005 for the hottest year 

in recorded history. The record heat, along with droughts and 

floods, are wreaking havoc around the world. Global warming is a 

plague that is driving hundreds of thousands of species from their 

homes and to the brink of extinction. The fact is unarguable, the 

planet is changing. We can argue about it from our climate-controlled offices. 

But scientists know the truth, and they are trying to tell us. 

NASA scientists tell us, to survive, both marine and land-based 

plants and animals have started to migrate toward the poles. These 

species, and in some cases entire ecosystems that cannot quickly 

migrate or adapt face extinction. With fewer healthy ecosystems for 

species to call home, it has never been more important for us to 

preserve and maintain areas like our national wild refuges. 

But more often than not, these refuges are overburdened and 

understaffed. Millions of refuge acres are overrun with invasive 

species like pythons, non-native rats and Asian carp. To make matters worse, more than 10,000 facilities are in disrepair, and shortages of law enforcement officers has led to problems with poaching, 

illegal border activity and drug trafficking. 

In New Jersey, Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge provides 

a shelter for wildlife and respite for our city dwellers, just 26 miles 

west of Times Square in New York. But that refuge is being 

squeezed by growing development, fragmentation. We are destroy-
10 

ing the habitats of several threatened and endangered species. 

Across the Country, one-third of the refuges have no full-time staff. 

The men and women of the Fish and Wildlife Service are devoted 

to their work. Too often, they are called on at work to do more with 

less. If some of our colleagues have their way, it will soon get 

worse. 

House Republicans want to slash hundreds of millions of dollars 

from the Fish and Wildlife budget. We shouldn’t be weakening our 

country’s environmental defenses. I look forward to hearing Mr. 

Ashe’s ideas on how we can address these issues and protect the 

habitats and wildlife that cannot protect themselves. 

May I take a moment more, Madam Chairman, to say thanks to 

Tom Strickland, whom I have known for a long time. He has been 

the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Refuges, and we 

are sorry to see him go. He got the first conviction under the Lautenberg law under the spousal abusers prohibition for guns. I 

thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Now, Senator Barrasso. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Welcome, Mr. Ashe. Congratulations. It was good to visit with 

you last week. Welcome to your family, thanks so much for being 

here, congratulations. 

I appreciate your taking the time to visit last week. We discussed 

a number of issues at the time. Obviously, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service has a huge impact in my home State of Wyoming and the 

rest of the Rocky Mountain west. One issue that is of great concern 

to me is the use that you have heard in previous statements from 

my side of the aisle with use of the Fish and Wildlife Service as 

a climate change agency. We talked about that. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s strategic plan for responding 

to accelerating climate change lays out a new mission for the Agency and the authority to carry out that mission. The plan states, ‘‘As 

a service, we are committed to examining everything we do, ever 

decision we make, every dollar we spend, through the lens of climate change.’’ The plan further states, ‘‘Given the magnitude of the 

threat posed by climate change to life as we know it, we cannot afford to think small or be held back by our fears or concerns.’’ The 

plan also goes on to say, ‘‘We must act now, as if the future of fish 

and wildlife and people hangs in the balance, for indeed, all indications are that it does.’’ 

If the American people back home are confused by how this is 

possible, that the Fish and Wildlife Service is suddenly declaring 

itself a climate change agency, all they need to do is go to one of 

the passages buried in the 32 pages that says ‘‘Climate change is 

not a new mission. It is the lens through which we must accomplish the mission we already have.’’ 

To me, this type of reinterpretation of the law isn’t music to the 

taxpayers’ ears. It is an example of the type of unconstitutional policymaking at the agencies that has everyone on both sides of the 

Hill clamoring for regulatory reform. That is why I have introduced 
11 

legislation, S. 228, the Defending America’s Affordable Energy and 

Jobs Act, which restores Congress’ role in determining America’s 

energy and environmental future. It does this by putting a halt to 

these back door cap-and-trade regulations and policies. 

It is important to me that any nominee to be Director of Fish and 

Wildlife Service be cognizant of the threats facing species and address them with a balanced approach. Taxpayer money must be focused where it can do the most good. The iconic species in the west 

that are truly in danger must be managed responsibly in partnership with the States. When recovery goals are met, the Service 

should honor its obligation and not move the goal posts. 

There is a lot of criticism in the west toward the Fish and Wildlife Service. In the 1990s, under President Clinton, that relationship began to sour. The mistrust of the Agency by the people in my 

State has continued ever since. Under President Clinton, then-Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt re-introduced gray wolves into the 

western Wyoming landscape, in Idaho and Montana. This decision 

was made without regard to many of the people who live there. We 

raise our families there, build our businesses there, and the Federal Government has treated us like some kind of a petri dish for 

an environmental experiment. 

Despite this, Wyoming has met its recovery goals for the wolf. On 

August 16th of last year, Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and 

Parks, Tom Strickland, who is with us today, said ‘‘The recovery 

of the wolf has been a stunning conservation success.’’ Yet, the Fish 

and Wildlife Services refuses to de-list the wolf in Wyoming. If we 

maintain the wolves, we should be allowed to manage them how 

we see fit. 

As I have stated in the past, the Clinton administration created 

this problem. The Bush administration failed to solve it. Now the 

Obama administration needs to deal with it. It is time for a change 

of course; it is time to restore the trust between the people of my 

State and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

So I hope we can count on you and this Administration to work 

with Wyoming to see the wolves de-listed. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator Merkley. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MERKLEY, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF OREGON 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Ashe, thank you for coming before the Committee. The Fish 

and Wildlife Service is an agency that has a major role in Oregon. 

We have 17 national wildlife refuges covering more than half a million acres. The Klamath Basin and its wildlife refuge is home to 

one of the most important bird habitats in North America. 

There are a couple of issues that I do have concerns about. One 

is the spotted owl recovery plan, which is being described very differently by the Fish and Wildlife Service and by the BLM in terms 

of its impact on forest management. Second of all, a series of proposals related to wind energy that seem at odds with the consultative process that went on for over 2 years. I will ask you about 
12 

those when the question period comes, if I am still here. If not, I 

will followup in the record and followup with you. 

Thank you very much for coming today. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Vitter. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr. 

Ashe, very much, for your service and for being here. Madam 

Chair, again, thanks for this very important hearing. It is important that Federal agencies be headed by competent and capable 

people. It is equally important that these folks understand that the 

decisions they make can have dramatic impacts, including dramatic 

economic impacts on the livelihoods of our fellow citizens. 

With that in mind, I want to highlight in my opening statement 

the ongoing deep frustration Louisianans are having with the Department of Interior over the ongoing de facto drilling moratorium 

in the Gulf. That is directly relevant, because it is Interior, and because all signs point to Fish and Wildlife and other environmental 

related agencies becoming much more involved in that permitting 

process. 

This de facto moratorium is devastating lives, costing jobs, devastating companies. Since the Deepwater Horizon explosion, and 

that is 8 months ago now, there have been zero new deepwater exploration permits issued. Zero. Since that incident, horrific incident, again, 8 months ago, the 32 deepwater operations that were 

operating are still either completely shut down or there has been 

a marginal improvement, at best. That translates into jobs and 

people’s lives being directly hurt. 

For 8 months straight before this month, Louisiana unemployment went up. As national unemployment was, thank goodness, 

stabilizing, Louisiana unemployment went up month after month 

for 8 months straight. That is directly related to this. 

Just last week, the second-largest shallow water driller in the 

Gulf, Seahawk Drilling, filed bankruptcy, because shallow water is 

still also impacted. Those permits have slowed, although it is not 

as bad as deepwater. 

Bottom line here, Louisianans want to get back to work. Filling 

those jobs is my absolute top priority. That has to come first. 

Second, there is even an impact on things we are debating right 

now in terms of debt and deficit and the budget. After the U.S. income tax, the second largest source of Federal revenue is royalty 

and other revenue related to that domestic energy production. So 

we are shutting that down and dramatically reducing that as well, 

even in a time when we are all rightly concerned about deficit and 

debt. 

One thing related to this, Century Exploration recently filed a 

lawsuit against the Federal Government, against the Interior Department, I think this is just the beginning, for breach of contract, 

asking for their money back, asking for lost profits, because they 

bought leases which are now pretty much good for nothing. 

My frustration is only increased by non-responses from the Interior Department. That includes, for instance, a November 21st let-
13 

ter from last year, which still has not been responded to. A February 3d letter from this year which still has not been responded 

to in terms of this issue. Those were not addressed to you, of 

course, Mr. Ashe. They were addressed to some of your significant 

colleagues in Interior. 

This is consistent, unfortunately, with the fact that the Department was handed a civil contempt order recently by the Federal 

judge handling these matters in terms of how the Department has 

handled the whole de facto moratorium and moratorium issue. 

I can’t overstate how devastating this has been to so many 

Louisianans and how frustrated Louisianans are with this pattern 

of actions by the Interior Department. That is my top concern, filling those Louisianans’ jobs is my top priority. That has to come 

first. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Baucus. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF MONTANA 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you, 

Mr. Ashe. Also Mr. Strickland, thank you for your service to our 

country. Welcome, Mr. Ashe, to the Committee. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service has a unique responsibility to 

watch over our Nation’s wildlife. Your decisions about their likely 

future and whether intervention is needed impacts millions of people around the country. This is a significant charge, and it is imperative that your decisions reflect both the current and best 

science, as well as the reality of conditions on the ground. 

As you know, we have a problem in our State, and that is wolves. 

The recent court decision which overturned the Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s 2009 rule has created an untenable situation on the 

ground. Montana’s consensus-based approach to wolf management, 

as is the case in other wildlife management, has demonstrated 

proven results, with a successful wolf hunt that works for hunters, 

ranchers and for wolves. 

But instead of being rewarded, Montana’s success has been halted by the return of the wolf to the Endangered Species List. Management has shifted from Montana back to Washington. Senator 

Barrasso is correct; there is a deep feeling in the west that Washington just doesn’t get it. It is removed, a little paternalistic, as the 

Senator mentioned, a petri dish, some of those words all come to 

mind. 

Ranchers aren’t clear on what the rules are. Hunters are worried 

that elk populations may dwindle if wolf populations are left unchecked, as is currently the case. Just last week, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service said it would be six more weeks before it could act 

on a Montana proposal to conduct a wolf hunt this year to control 

populations. 

We have been talking about this for a long time, since August. 

We are well past the time when it should be fixed. I have introduced legislation which would remove the wolf from the Endangered Species list and return it to State management. The goal is 

to turn back the clock to exactly where we were before the court 

decision, and the text of my bill does just that. 
14 

Members of this Committee know how hard we need to work to 

resolve this. I think there is cooperation on this Committee to resolve this wolf matter. As incoming Director, you would be charged 

with working with us to find that solution. 

This spirit of cooperation is what built the west. Listen to the 

words of Wallace Stegner: ‘‘It is true that the west’s history is 

punctuated with the lives of rugged individualists. But they built 

such things as railroad empires, land empires and the Anaconda 

Copper Company. Who built the west as a living place, a frugal, 

hard, gloriously satisfying civilization, scrabbling for its existence 

against the forces of weather, and a land as fragile as it is demanding, was not rugged individualists, but cooperators, neighbors, who 

knew how to help out in crisis, who could get together and build 

a school and figure out a way to get the kids there. Pool their efforts to search fort lost cattle, or lost people, and joined in frequent 

blowouts, dances and fairs.’’ 

Mr. Ashe, I know that is the spirit with which you will approach 

this job. We need that cooperation and working together to get this 

done. I wish you good luck. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Baucus follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

I want to welcome you, Mr. Ashe, to the Senate Environment and Public Works 

Committee. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service has a unique responsibility to watch over our Nation’s wildlife. Your decisions about their likely future and whether intervention is 

needed impact millions of people around the country. This is a significant charge, 

and it is imperative that your decisions reflect both the current and best science as 

well as the reality of conditions on the ground. 

Mr. Ashe, we have a problem, and that problem is wolves. The recent court decision which overturned the Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2009 rule has created an untenable situation on the ground. Montana’s consensus—based approach to wolf management is being rewarded by the return of the wolf to the endangered species list. 

Management has shifted to Washington. Montanans don’t need D.C. bureaucrats 

telling us how to manage wolves in our State. 

Ranchers aren’t clear on what the rules are and hunters are worried that elk populations may dwindle if wolf populations are left unchecked. Just last week, the 

Fish and Wildlife Service said it would be 6 more weeks before it acts on a Montana 

proposal to conduct a wolf hunt this year to control populations. We’ve been talking 

about this now since August. We’re well past the time when it should have been 

fixed. I have introduced legislation that will remove the wolf from the endangered 

species list and return it to State management. 

My goal is to turn back the clock to exactly where we were before the court decision, and the text of my bill does just that. The members of this Committee know 

what needs to be done, and I look forward to working with each of you, westerners 

and easterners, republicans and democrats, to enact legislation in the coming weeks. 

We need to resolve this, and we need to do it now. 

As incoming Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, you, Mr, Ashe, will be 

charged with working with us to find a solution. I hope that you will take that 

charge seriously. This spirit of cooperation is what built the West. 

Wallace Stegner wrote, ‘‘It is true that the West’s history is punctuated with the 

lives of rugged individualists . . . but they built such things as railroad empires, 

land empires, and the Anaconda Copper Company. 

Who built the West as a living-place, a frugal, hard, gloriously satisfying civilization scrabbling for its existence against the forces of weather and a land as fragile 

as it is demanding, was not rugged individuals but cooperators, neighbors who knew 

how to help out in crises, who could get together to build a school and figure out 

a way to get the kids there, pool their efforts to search for lost cattle or lost people, 

and join in infrequent . . . dances, and fairs.’’ 

I hope that we can work together, in this same spirit, to resolve the wolf issue 

now. 
15 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Boozman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF ARKANSAS 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Ashe, we want to thank you for your dedication to the Fish 

and Wildlife Service, and thank you for appearing here today. Congratulations on your nomination. That is an honor in itself. 

As you know, the Service operates 10 refuges in Arkansas. These 

are an important part of our State. The agency’s activities have a 

major impact on Arkansas’ economy and the economy of our country. You have an important mission, conserving, protecting and enhancing fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. I want to help you meet 

these important responsibilities, while minimizing adverse impacts 

to job creation, the economy of Arkansas and our way of life. 

It is interesting, we all, whether it is wolves, or oil or whatever, 

most of us here are most familiar with the areas that go on in our 

State. That is the interaction that we have had with the Agencies 

in the past. I guess what I would like to be reassured of is that 

as we deal with areas, that we deal with it with common sense. Are 

we using sound science, are we getting the emotion out of the play, 

and are we helping producers and entities as we make changes 

that in many cases threaten the very existence. 

In some cases, we have had, I think that has made a good story 

with the Agency. In other cases, it hasn’t been as good a story. Recently, the Obama administration added big head carp to the Injurious Species under the Lacy Act. In the past, silver carp and black 

carp have been added to the list through the rulemaking process. 

But their farmers were allowed to sell their inventory. Now we are 

in a situation in Arkansas where the only way to get rid of the 

stock that they have is to drain the ponds and in doing so, because 

of the process that is involved, probably many, many will escape, 

again, causing unintended consequences. 

I was the ranking member on Water Resources on the House, 

and have sat through many hours of testimony and understand the 

danger and the economic impact that that has on areas like the 

Great Lakes and things like that. But I guess what I would like 

to know, as we talk further, again, we have to have a willing commitment, not only in that area, but in all of these areas that you 

are hearing about, to work with a particular industry, to make sure 

that we have an environmentally safe way to solve the problem. 

With that, I yield back. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Now, we go to Senator Whitehouse. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Welcome to the Committee, Mr. Ashe. Thank you, Mr. Strickland, for your service. I want to thank the Chair for renewing my 

appointment as the Chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee and 

for adding to our jurisdiction the science and research issues. I look 
16 

forward to working with my Ranking Member, Senator Johanns, 

and with Senator Boozman on the issues that will be before us. I 

want to thank Senator Barrasso for his service as the ranking 

member of that subcommittee in the past Congress. He is a pleasure to work with, and I enjoyed it very much. 

I am also very grateful to be serving on Chairman Baucus’ Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Chairman 

Cardin’s Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife, and my friend, 

Chairman Udall’s Subcommittee on Children’s Health and Environmental Responsibility. I think those are all important tasks for this 

Committee. 

The only thing that I would ask of Mr. Ashe is that in my view 

of the Constitution, it is perfectly legitimate for the executive 

branch of Government to make its own determination of what the 

situations are that confront this country and react within the laws 

that Congress has established. The amount of carbon pollution that 

mankind has released into the atmosphere is not a theory, it is a 

fact. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not 

a theory, it is a fact. 

The effects of that have been known since the Irish scientist Tyndall figured it out in the 19th century. It is textbook science, it is 

not a theory in that sense. It is fully established and virtually unchallenged. 

So the fact that we are changing our planet in significant ways, 

as measured by things like our water, our oceans’ acidity being for 

the first time veered outside of a range within which they have 

been for 8,000 centuries is a risky proposition for us, and something that I think the executive branch does well to attend to, and 

meets its responsibilities to the American people when it does attend to it. I would urge you to not mimic the ostrich that puts its 

head in the sand and look to the facts around you and discharge 

your duties accordingly. 

But I think that the theory that the executive branch can’t act 

or decide or respond to reality until Congress has directed it to is 

a mistake, so long as the executive branch is acting within the laws 

that Congress has prescribed. I would urge you to use your good 

judgment. There are times when Congress represents the will of 

the American people, there are times when Congress represents 

the will of very powerful vested interests. I think the executive 

branch is capable of sorting through that, and I look forward to 

working with you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Last but not least, Senator Udall. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Madam Chair. I also very much appreciate my appointment as Chair of the Subcommittee on Children’s Health and Environmental Responsibility, and I look forward to working with you on an aggressive agenda there. I look 

forward to serving with Lamar Alexander as the Ranking Member 

on that Subcommittee. I know that that is an area where we have 

very important issues to tackle. 
17 

I would like to welcome Dan Ashe to the proceedings today, and 

thank him for his years of hard work given in serving our Nation 

in the Fish and Wildlife Service. I think also before that, you 

served in the House of Representatives as a staff member. So you 

have experience in a legislative situation and you also have, I 

think, significant experience at the Fish and Wildlife Service. I 

think you are just the kind of career person that we need at the 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

As you know, the Agency that you have worked in has serious 

duties and very difficult responsibilities. The Fish and Wildlife 

Service is responsible for ensuring that all species are able to survive as we try to co-exist. With the progression of climate change, 

and as my colleague, Senator Whitehouse, mentioned, we have 

some real disagreements on this committee. But the science is pretty clear. The work of the Fish and Wildlife Service will become 

more and more difficult. 

In that respect, whether we agree or disagree on the impacts of 

global warming, adaptation should be something we can all unite 

around. The Fish and Wildlife Service has embarked on a program, 

I believe, a cooperative program which deals with adaptation called 

the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, which you are trying to 

work with and form around the country. I look forward to hearing, 

in your testimony, how that program is going, how it is progressing. 

Your Agency is also essential, it is essential that you use sciencebased policies to accomplish the goal of maintaining healthy wildlife populations and the ecosystems that support them. Maintaining healthy ecosystems will help ensure that our water, air and 

food is also clean and healthy. By protecting the environment we 

also protect man. 

So with that, I look forward, I will shorten my opening statement 

here and look forward to the questions and your testimony. I also 

want to thank my good friend, Tom Strickland, for your hard work 

in the Agency. You have overseen this particular agency, Fish and 

Wildlife. You have also overseen Parks. At the same time, as I 

think I said at your nomination, I couldn’t believe you were also 

going to do the Chief of Staff job. I think you have done a remarkable job in that respect. I am sure that Secretary Salazar is really 

going to miss you, and certainly the country is, too. So thank you 

for your service. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Would you like us to put your entire statement into the record? 

We will do that, without objection. 

Actually, it is your moment now, Mr. Ashe. I am sure you 

thought at one point you would have to send in for lunch. But we 

are at that point. So welcome, and go right ahead. If you want to 

go off text and address some of the issues that were raised, we will 

give you a couple of extra minutes. It is up to you, or you can wait 

for the questions. Go right ahead. 
18 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL M. ASHE, NOMINATED BY PRESIDENT 

OBAMA TO BE DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Mr. ASHE. Thank you, Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member 

Inhofe, and Committee members. I do want to thank Senator 

Cardin for his very kind introduction and everyone here for the 

warm welcomes I have received as I have come to your offices and 

met with you before today’s hearing. 

I would like to acknowledge a few people that are here today. 

Certainly my wife, Barbara, who has already been introduced, but 

who has stuck with me for 32 years, despite pretty serious addictions to work and waterfowl hunting. Our daughter, Mary, who has 

also been introduced. 

Dr. Tom Kitsos and his wife, Mary. Tom was my boss for 13 

years on Capitol Hill and my long-term mentor. Tom, Mary, thank 

you very much for being here today. 

I would like to add my congratulations and thanks to Assistant 

Secretary Tom Strickland. Tom has been a great ally in fish and 

wildlife conservation. When he departs the Interior Department tomorrow, he will be sorely missed in the days ahead. 

Just 19 months ago, our late Director, Sam Hamilton, was sitting 

where I am today, being considered for what he called the best job 

in the country. To me, Sam was leader, colleague, a boss and a 

friend. So today, I am standing on Sam’s shoulders, but also on the 

shoulders of many dedicated Fish and Wildlife Service employees, 

present and past, including my own father. Because of his 37-year 

career, I have known the Service my entire life. Following him to 

wildlife refuges and hatcheries, I learned to band birds, to fish, to 

hunt, to hike, and just to wander about and to love the outdoors. 

The first 13 years of my career, as has been mentioned, I was 

a professional staff member for the former Committee on Merchant 

Marine and Fisheries in the U.S. House of Representatives, a committee with a great tradition of bipartisan accomplishment. A committee that not only nurtured great conservation laws, but great 

conservation leaders and legislators with names like Dingle, 

Breaux, Forsyth, Boxer and Inhofe. 

In 1995, then-Director Molly Beatty asked me to join the Service’s leadership team. My Capitol Hill experience has been invaluable in the four leadership posts that I have held since then. 

I believe during that time I have earned a reputation for collaboration, integrity, vision and accomplishment. My leadership direction will be straightforward. The Service must have a strong scientific foundation and a culture of interdependence with partners. 

The Service is proudly successful, but it is one part of a larger 

conservation community that includes local, State and tribal governments, non-government organizations, the business sector and 

America’s private land owners. The Service’s success depends upon 

their success. 

Receiving the Senate’s confirmation as Director would be a distinct honor, certainly because of the opportunity to be of service to 

the Nation, also to serve the people who are the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, people who are passionate about conserving wild 

places and wild things, and people who represent the very best in 

public service. 
19 

I have seen it in employees working hand in hand with the State 

of California to restore San Francisco Bay wetlands. I have seen it 

in employees working alongside private landowners and public 

school teachers in Oklahoma. I have seen it in employees struggling against white nose syndrome in bats throughout the east and 

now into the western United States. I have seen it at its very best 

when employees literally dropped everything and deployed to the 

Gulf of Mexico in its times of need after Hurricane Katrina and the 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 

If confirmed, I hope to nurture their indomitable spirit, remove 

obstacles to their success, provide them a sense of direction and optimism, and set a tone for integrity and excellence. I am extraordinarily honored that President Obama and Secretary Salazar 

asked me to serve as Director. It seems just yesterday I was following my dad to wonderful places like Blackbeard Island, Okefenokee, Chattahoochee Forest, Sanibel Island and Big Pine Key. 

Now I am being considered to lead the outfit entrusted with these 

great places and so many more, the world’s finest organization of 

fish and wildlife conservation professionals. 

It is humbling, and it is a powerful incentive to uphold the tradition of excellence that the Office of Director demands. With the 

consent of this committee and the U.S. Senate, I will give the job 

my very best. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ashe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL M. ASHE, NOMINEE FOR DIRECTOR OF THE U.S. FISH AND

WILDLIFE SERVICE

INTRODUCTION

Thank you, Madam Chairman, Senator Inhofe, and Members of the committee. I 

am honored to be with you today as President Barack Obama’s nominee to serve 

the American people as Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

With your indulgence, I would like to begin with a short, personal introduction 

to provide some context for how I came to be here today. 

PERSONAL BACKGROUND

I have been a part of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) family for my 

entire life, so my nomination to serve as Director of this great Agency represents 

both the opportunity of a lifetime and an honor. 

I was born, and spent my childhood, in Atlanta, Georgia, where my father began 

what was to be a 37-year career with the Service. His is a far more interesting story 

than mine. Born into the industrial poverty of Connecticut’s Naugatuck River Valley 

and educated with the aid of the GI bill, he and my mother moved to Atlanta so 

he could take a job with the Service. There, he advanced through a series of positions in what was then the Branch of Lands, later the Division of Realty, and ultimately rose to be Deputy Regional Director in the Service’s Northeast Region. Some 

of my earliest and fondest childhood memories are accompanying my father to national wildlife refuges and fish hatcheries in the Southeast—such as Okefenokee, 

Blackbeard Island, and Chattahoochee Forest—where I learned to band birds, fish, 

hunt, hike, and most importantly, to simply enjoy the outdoors. I saw Service employees in action, doing their jobs with commitment and camaraderie, something I 

recognized but could not put into words as a kid. I met people who would become 

Service legends, like Jack Watson, the colorful manager of National Key Deer National Wildlife Refuge, and former Directors John Gottschalk and Lynn Greenwalt, 

whose leadership and vision made distinctive contributions to the Service. 

My mother grew up during the great depression, in the poor working neighborhoods of Bridgeport, Connecticut. She raised five boys, and, maybe because we had 

nothing else to do, was always encouraging us to ‘‘go outside.’’ In spring and summer, she allowed our screened porch to become a veritable zoological park of lizards, 

snakes, turtles, orphaned birds and even the occasional baby possum or raccoon. 
20 

The milkman once stopped delivering to our house because the milk box was just 

a perfect reptile receptacle. She demanded excellence in school, and she modeled tolerance for differences among people, but intolerance for the racial injustices of that 

time. More than anyone, she taught me that I could accomplish anything—whether 

repairing a faucet or bicycle, competing in sports, attending college, or leading a 

complex organization—as long as I was willing to dedicate myself fully to the task 

at hand and learn from my mistakes. 

My parents did not actively encourage me to go into the conservation profession; 

they did not have to. They simply opened the door to the endless fascination of wild 

things and wild places and to the passion of those working to conserve our outdoor 

heritage. These early experiences gave me a deeply rooted appreciation for the work 

that the Service and its partner organizations do and a desire to play a part in it. 

I followed that passion to Texas A&M University and then Florida State University, where I earned a Bachelor of Science degree in biological sciences. Later, I 

earned a graduate degree in marine affairs from the University of Washington. My 

master’s thesis, on estuarine wetland mitigation, was published in the Coastal Zone 

Management Journal in 1982. 

I am joined today by my wife Barbara, whom I spirited away from the State of 

Florida in 1979. She married a marine biologist and is fond of saying she has been 

moving further from the coast ever since. Barbara is the Executive Vice President 

for the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce, so we have a marriage that represents the interconnectedness of environment and economy, and one that is always 

filled with lively discussion. We have two children, Mary and Michael. Both are pursuing their own course in education and life, and I am proud that they each have 

a burning love of the outdoors and an appreciation of what is required to conserve 

it. 

My journey to the Nation’s capital began when I was awarded a National Sea 

Grant congressional Fellowship in 1982. For the next 13 years, I served as a member of the professional staff of the former Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, in the U.S. House of Representatives. During my time on Capitol Hill, I advised the Committee’s Chairmen and Members on a wide range of environmental 

policy issues, including endangered species and biodiversity conservation, ocean and 

coastal resources protection, the National Wildlife Refuge System, the National Marine Sanctuaries Program, the Clean Water Act, wetlands conservation, fisheries 

management and conservation, and offshore oil and gas development—all issues of 

direct concern to the Agency I am nominated to lead. My experience on the Hill gave 

me invaluable insight into congressional operations and the work ethic of Members 

and staff, as well as an understanding and respect for the craft of policymaking that 

has served me well in my own work with the Service. 

TRACK RECORD AND EXPERIENCE

When I was hired as the Service’s Assistant Director for External Affairs in 1995, 

I was thrilled to have the opportunity to follow in my father’s footsteps and make 

my own contribution to an agency we both love. In that position, I directed the Service’s programs in legislative, public, and Native American affairs, research coordination, and State grants-in-aid. 

From 1998 to 2003, I served as the Chief of the National Wildlife Refuge System, 

directing operation and management of the then 93 million-acre Refuge System and 

the Service’s land acquisition program. During those 5 years, the Refuge System developed a promising vision, expanded its commitment to partnership, volunteerism, 

and ‘‘friends’’ organizations, and set the stage for sustained success. As a result, the 

System received vastly expanded public visibility, partner and community involvement, and strong support within the Administration and Congress. Today, the Refuge System stands at more than 150 million acres, 553 units, and 38 wetland management districts. I believe it is the world’s finest collection of public lands and waters dedicated to fish and wildlife conservation. 

Throughout much of its history, the Service has set the standard for science-based 

wildlife management, and, in my view, the best science must inform and underpin 

everything we do as an agency. I am proud to have contributed to a renaissance 

of science and professionalism within the Service during the 6 years I served as 

Science Advisor to the Director before becoming Deputy Director in 2009. In this capacity, I had broad responsibility to provide leadership on science policy and scientific applications to resource management. During my tenure, the Service began 

developing and implementing an agenda for change toward a science-driven, landscape conservation business model designed to respond to broad threats such as 

habitat loss and fragmentation, illegal trade in wildlife, invasive species, growing 

water scarcity, wildlife disease, and global climate change. I also led efforts to reem-
21 

phasize the importance of scientific research and professionalism and worked to 

build stronger relationships with the U.S. Geological Survey and scientific professional societies. 

As a member of the Service’s Directorate, I have worked hard to ensure that this 

commitment to scientific integrity is maintained and our responsibility to the American public is fulfilled by implementing state-of-the art approaches to strategically 

address the nation’s most pressing conservation needs. I have also provided leadership in implementing strategic landscape conservation as our operational paradigm 

to ensure that we target science in the right places through thoughtful planning, 

monitoring of outcomes, and adaptive management. 

The Service makes decisions every day that are important to the American people. 

The actions we take to ensure the sustainability of our nation’s fish and wildlife resources affect both public and private lands and impact the quality of life, the economic well-being, and the recreational and aesthetic enjoyment of our citizens. Our 

decisions and actions have both immediate and long-term implications: as public 

servants entrusted by the American people with stewardship responsibilities for 

America’s wildlife resources, we act on behalf of both present and future generations. Public service, social responsibility, respect for all stakeholders, and scientific 

integrity, are core values that serve as foundations of the professionalism upon 

which those that came before me built this Agency. My highest aspiration as Director, if confirmed, is to strengthen those foundational core values so that this commitment to the American public can be realized and the trust placed in the Agency 

to provide leadership in stewardship of our nation’s wildlife resources can be fulfilled. 

PHILOSOPHY, PRIORITIES AND VISION

My conservation philosophy is straightforward: safeguarding the Nation’s fish, 

wildlife, and plant resources and our magnificent lands and waters requires that we 

recognize and capitalize on our interdependence with a larger conservation community that includes local, state, and tribal governments; non-government organizations; the private sector; and America’s private landowners. Our work must reflect 

a unity of purpose in what we want to achieve, the vision to recognize the opportunities in the challenges we face, a determination to move forward courageously in 

addressing those challenges, and an optimism that these challenges can be met. I 

believe these qualities define our Agency and they were shared by my friend and 

our former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Sam Hamilton. Sam’s tragic 

passing less than a year ago left the Service deeply wounded but, at the same time, 

inspired in us a strong desire to move forward in carrying out our shared vision for 

the Service. 

UNITY OF PURPOSE

History has demonstrated that unity of purpose yields success in conserving fish, 

wildlife, plants and habitats. When we pull together we get things done, whether 

it is the creation of a system of lands and waters as a refuge for wildlife, the passage of laws to protect endangered and threatened species, or the response to a disastrous oil spill. In fact, it is my belief that unity with our State fish and wildlife 

agency partners is the most consequential ingredient in our success. States have the 

principal responsibility for fish and wildlife stewardship in America. When they are 

strong in that stewardship, we are strong. When they succeed, we succeed. The 

Service’s authorities are to enhance the work of our State counterparts. This includes providing a framework for migratory bird conservation across national and 

international boundaries; safeguarding endangered and threatened species; regulating interState and international wildlife trade; and acquiring and managing nationally significant habitat for wildlife and fish conservation. Sam and I often spoke 

about the importance of maintaining our core partnerships, particularly our crucial 

relationship with the states. He often characterized the importance of that relationship by saying, ‘‘Let there be no daylight between us.’’ I also well remember that 

among my father’s staunchest allies, and best friends, were State agency directors 

such as Dick Cronin in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania’s Ralph Abele. I firmly 

share this commitment to partnership with the states, and growing these relationships will be a key element of my agenda if I am confirmed as Director. 

Unity of purpose within what we collectively call the ‘‘conservation community’’ 

is also an essential ingredient to success. Historically, this community has run the 

gamut from the most traditional sporting organizations to the most progressive environmental groups. The Service has often been a place where these interests come 

together, and that was certainly an ingredient in my successful tenure as National 

Wildlife Refuge System Chief. I supported, and benefited from, the Cooperative Alli-
22 

ance for Refuge Enhancement , or CARE. This group includes a cast of organizations with very diverse missions, from the National Rifle Association to the Defenders of Wildlife, working together to support the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

If confirmed, you have my commitment that I will foster this type of unity as a 

means of strengthening natural resource conservation. I believe that no single entity, whether Federal, state, tribal or private, can independently address the conservation challenges of the 21st century. We must adopt a philosophy of interdependence, which requires relationships founded in respect and trust, and I would 

make this a priority during my tenure as Service Director. 

In the Service, we are well aware that the ‘‘conservation community’’ includes 

America’s private landowners. More than 70 percent of land in the continental 

United States is in private ownership, largely as farms, ranches, and forests, as well 

as land held in trust by the United States for various Indian tribes and individuals. 

While the Service’s collaborative efforts range as far as international partnerships 

that conserve species of concern around the globe, they are also as near as work 

with individual landowners in America through programs such as Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife. 

VISION, DETERMINATION AND OPTIMISM

I believe unity of purpose leads to a renewed and expanded vision of what is possible in conserving our natural resources. That greater vision, in turn, serves to 

strengthen our determination to face adversity and act with courage and optimism, 

even in times of uncertainty. Throughout its history, the Service has demonstrated 

both the vision to identify emerging environmental threats and the determination 

to implement critical responses, whether rising to the challenge of the 1930’s Dust 

Bowl of J.N. ‘‘Ding’’ Darling’s tenure as Director, the widespread use of contaminants in Rachel Carson’s era as a Service scientist, or the depletion of wetlands in 

the 1980’s, when my father was helping lead the organization. 

We once again witnessed this vision, determination and optimism on the part of 

the Federal Government, the Service, the states, and our many conservation partners during the recent Gulf oil spill crisis. As Deputy Director during this crisis, 

I was proud to play a role in helping orchestrate the Service’s response, but our 

Service employees were the real heroes. Nearly 2,000 of them—approximately 25 

percent of the Service’s workforce—worked directly on the spill, with more than 

1,500 actually deploying to the Gulf Region to assist in the response after the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded and sank on the night of April 19, 2010. Service employees from all programs and pay grades cleaned tar balls off beaches; worked long 

hours behind the scenes hunched over laptops in Incident Command Centers; surveyed bird colonies and habitats by plane, helicopter, boat and on foot; rescued oiled 

birds and brought them in for cleaning; saved baby sea turtles who might otherwise 

have died; and volunteered for second, and third, and fourth deployments in response to the need for their services. Most important, the Service’s men and women 

integrated smoothly into the largest, most complex, and successful Incident Command Structure ever assembled outside of a war zone. 

The work performed by the Service and its Federal and State partners has been 

critical to the overall response effort. We are proud to be playing a key role today, 

working in partnership with the States, private citizens, and the conservation community in restoring one of the most incredible ecosystems on the planet. This task 

will not be easy, and it won’t be accomplished quickly. We are in it for the long haul. 

Nothing less than success is acceptable, and continuing our all-out support for Gulf 

Coast restoration will be among my top priorities as Director, should I be confirmed. 

We are living in an era of monumental conservation challenges, including the loss 

and fragmentation of habitats, genetic isolation, invasive species, water scarcity, 

and illegal wildlife trade. We know these challenges will be compounded by continued growth, and growing affluence in human populations and the associated demands on land and water resources. We know they will be magnified by the effects 

of a changing climate. All of these stressors work in concert—24 hours a day and 

7 days a week—cumulatively challenging our efforts to sustain healthy, vibrant ecosystems, particularly in regard to those species already recognized as endangered, 

threatened, or imperiled. Our vision and our determination must be equal to these 

challenges. 

Now more than ever our conservation work must be science-driven, and the activities we undertake for species on the ground, at individual project sites, must strategically support achievement of our conservation goals at broader scales, across entire species’ ranges, or what we would call ‘‘landscapes.’’ A more holistic conservation approach is particularly critical in understanding and responding to nationwide 

resource threats, such as the spread of white-nose syndrome (WNS) in bats—ani-
23 

mals essential in our ecosystems as pollinators, seed dispersers, and providers of 

natural pest control. Named for the white fungus that appears on the muzzle and 

other body parts of hibernating bats, WNS has spread rapidly across the eastern 

United States, killing more than 1 million bats. The fungus has been detected as 

far west as Oklahoma, and is expected to continue spreading. 

To effectively manage these kinds of emerging challenges and to ensure sustainable natural systems into the future, we must develop the capacity to envision and 

deliver conservation across connected networks of habitats, based on scientific understanding and predictions of species’ needs. That is why the Service is working 

with its sister bureaus in the Department of the Interior and with government, nongovernment, and private sector partners to establish a network of Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs), a system of science-management partnerships working in unison to support on-the-ground strategic conservation efforts at landscape 

scales. LCCs operate within a specific landscape—at present, 21 geographic areas 

in all. Active partners include Federal, state, and local governments; tribes; universities; non-governmental organizations; landowners; and others involved in resource 

management. Collectively, LCCs represent a national, and ultimately, international 

network of land, water, wildlife and cultural resource managers and interested public and private organizations. 

Vision in the area of scientific capacity, capability, and excellence would also continue to be a priority for me as Director, if confirmed, as it has been in my role 

as Deputy Director. Science is, I believe, the key to conservation success on the 

ground. From the creation of the world’s most comprehensive waterfowl surveys to 

the pioneering work on the effects of DDT on migratory birds, the Service has built 

a reputation for science excellence that spans decades. In recent years, we have renewed our commitment to science within the Agency, taking a number of key steps 

including the development of the Service’s first ever Scientific Code of Professional 

Conduct and two peer-review journals to support the work of our scientists and provide our employees with the best tools available to accomplish our conservation mission. 

Through careful consultation with its partners and employees, the Service will 

identify additional priorities for conservation science and develop additional capacity 

and partnerships to develop, acquire and apply science with unsurpassed excellence. 

I will aspire to continue strengthening the culture and capacities for scientific excellence as Service Director, should I be confirmed. 

At the same time, we are investing in technological tools a valuable payoff in 

times of tight budgets and smaller staffs. The use of Geographic Information Systems, for example, is transforming the way that our field personnel are capturing, 

analyzing, and managing habitat data; they are able to do in hours what otherwise 

would have taken months to accomplish. Our efforts to make this and other tools 

more widely available will have both immediate and long-term benefits. If confirmed 

as Director, I aspire to continue working for gains in science and technology that 

are reshaping the way the Service does business in the 21st Century and equipping 

our workforce with the necessary tools to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats—trust responsibilities that are unwavering even 

as our world continues to change. 

In 1973, Congress passed the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by a nearly unanimous vote to protect those species in danger of extinction or under threat of becoming endangered. The Service is, in large measure, the Agency entrusted with administering the Act. I believe that as a country, we can take great pride in the fact that 

this legislation has been a success story and has prevented the loss of hundreds of 

species, including the bald eagle and the peregrine falcon. 

In implementing the ESA, we will identify opportunities to more fully engage 

states and tribes as partners in managing threatened and endangered species and 

their habitats as we operate within our limited resources and ever-increasing workload. More energy and attention should be focused on species recovery—the ultimate 

goal of the Act. If confirmed, I would work closely with the Committee on this issue. 

Of equal importance is the need to address a continuing and alarming downward 

trend in our Nation’s fish species resulting from loss in the amount and quality of 

freshwater, estuarine, and marine habitats. America’s fisheries have sustained our 

people since our earliest history, and today a multi-billion-dollar industry in commercial and recreational fishing helps to support our economy. For more than 100 

years, the Service’s hatchery program has worked to facilitate recreational fishing 

and aquatic habitat restoration through partnerships with states and tribes that 

benefit local communities. If confirmed one of my priorities will be ensuring that 

our Nation’s fish and aquatic communities are receiving the attention and resources 

necessary, including through voluntary partnerships and other capacity-building en-
24 

deavors, to successfully foster fish habitat conservation and provide benefits to the 

American people. 

Last March Secretary Salazar released The State of the Birds 2010 Report, which 

assessed the vulnerability of nearly 800 bird species to climate change and indicated 

that climate change will have an increasingly disruptive effect on bird species in all 

habitats. The Report noted that all 67 oceanic bird species, including petrels and 

albatrosses, are among the most vulnerable birds in the United States to climate 

change. For bird species that are already of conservation concern, such as the golden-cheeked warbler and the whooping crane, the added vulnerability to climate 

change may hasten declines or prevent recovery. Key to addressing this challenge 

is continued strong support and growth of partnership conservation initiatives such 

as Joint Ventures—self-directed, regional partnerships that deliver science-based, 

on-the-ground conservation. 

The State of the Birds 2009 Report also highlighted examples where habitat restoration and conservation actions have reversed previous declines. These improvements are largely attributable to a strong focus on wetlands conservation and management, particularly the overwhelming success of a continental waterfowl management plan that involved the restoration and management of more than 30 million 

acres of wetlands by the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The efforts though programs and initiatives like Joint Ventures have demonstrated that bird populations 

show amazing resilience and ability to recover when the health of their habitat is 

sustained or restored. When we apply conservation, conservation works. 

Contributing to these conservation successes is the Service’s Law Enforcement 

program, whose efforts I am committed to strengthening. Our Office of Law Enforcement investigates wildlife crimes, helps Americans understand and obey wildlife 

protections laws, works in partnership with international, state, and tribal counterparts to conserve wildlife resources and regulate wildlife trade. I am particularly 

concerned with bolstering those activities that combat the unlawful take and commercialization of our rarest wildlife species and address other critical threats to 

wildlife conservation. The Office’s special agents, who pursue crimes that range 

from wildlife profiteering to habitat destruction, and wildlife inspectors, who provide 

the Nation’s front-line defense against wildlife smuggling, work on more than 

13,000 investigations each year. The success of this work is even more critical now 

as wildlife resources face new pressures from climate change and habitat transformation. 

Our National Wildlife Refuge System will be front and center in this effort, as 

well as in the Service’s climate adaptation and landscape-scale conservation strategies. If I am confirmed, I look forward to working with Secretary Salazar, in close 

collaboration with the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the 

House Natural Resources Committee, to strengthen the integrity of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System and chart a clear course for the System as a crucial element 

in shaping the Nation’s environmental future. 

Just as the Fish and Wildlife Service works to preserve the diversity of America’s 

natural resources, we are also following the Department of the Interior’s lead in 

building a workforce that reflects the diversity of the American people. My father 

is proud of the fact that he hired the first modern-era female refuge manager at 

Canaan National Wildlife Refuge in West Virginia in the mid-70’s—not very long 

ago. Today, the Service’s workforce is strengthened by a growing gender, racial, and 

ethnic diversity, but we still have a long way to go. 

Diversity is a long-term, ongoing commitment. If confirmed, I will commit to an 

increased focus on this important effort. This is not just the right thing to do for 

people; it is also a smart way to carry out conservation. Unity of purpose requires 

that the makeup of our organization be reflective of American society as a whole. 

We will work as an executive team to set and accomplish diversity goals, and managers and supervisors will be held accountable for achieving measurable, meaningful, and lasting results in this area. We are committed to doing a better job of marketing the Service to nontraditional audiences, committing resources, training our 

managers and supervisors, developing our employees, and recognizing those who 

have taken personal responsibility for organizational change. 

CONCLUSION

I would be profoundly honored to become Director because of the great opportunity it gives me to be of service, both to the Nation and to an organization whose 

mission I strongly believe in. What I learned from my dad and from watching Service employees growing up is that public service is a privilege and a high calling, one 

that I answered early on in my career. The issues we are dealing with on a daily 

basis as a Service are very important to me and are my life’s work. 
25 

Next, I am convinced that what came before, including my experience on Capitol 

Hill and the four leadership positions I held in the Service, has prepared me for 

the task that lies ahead as Director, should I be confirmed. My desire is to apply 

all that I have learned from life and from some exceptional leaders I have had the 

chance to observe, including in the U.S. Congress, to foster the unity of purpose, 

create the vision, unleash the determination, and apply the spirit of optimism that 

are needed to ensure a sustainable future for fish and wildlife and healthy ecosystems for wildlife and people. I am excited about what is possible for the Service 

and for the Nation as we move forward in creating science partnerships across the 

public and private sectors through LCCs; as we leave ‘‘no daylight between us’’ in 

our collaboration with states and other partners; as we pursue scientific excellence 

within and outside our ranks to inform our decisionmaking; as we move forward in 

restoring Gulf Coast ecosystems; as we seek ways to improve our implementation 

of conservation laws; as we work to reconnect people to the great outdoors; and as 

we grow a diverse and inclusive workforce that will prepare this organization to 

lead our conservation mission well into the future. I believe that in every challenge 

there are incredible opportunities waiting to be seized upon by those with the motivation and the tenacity to do so. 

That brings me to the final, and most important reason, I would be honored to 

serve: the people who make up the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Our employees 

give everything they have to the mission out of their passion for America’s fish, 

wildlife and plant resources and the incredible diversity of landscapes and water 

bodies that support them. These employees do not need anyone to ‘‘motivate’’ 

them—they are driven by their deep-seated desire to ensure the legacy of wild 

places and wild things for this and future generations. What those inside the Service know is that when it comes to leadership, it is strong at every level of the organization. We are led both top down and bottom up. Some of the most exciting innovations we have undertaken, including carbon sequestration to reduce atmospheric 

greenhouse gases and strategic habitat conservation, were ideas that began at the 

field level, where most of our workforce is employed. My job as Director, if confirmed, would be to nurture, foster, and guide that indomitable spirit of innovation, 

remove obstacles to our success, and lead us forward in pursuing the relationships 

and the organizational and scientific excellence that will be required to achieve the 

Service’s and the Nation’s conservation mission. 

I am extraordinarily grateful that President Obama and Secretary Salazar have 

placed their trust in me as the nominee to serve as Director of the Fish and Wildlife 

Service. If confirmed, I can assure you that I will work in a spirit of collaboration 

with Congress, state, tribal and Federal agencies, and all stakeholders in pursuing 

what I know to be our mutual interests in securing the health and well-being of our 

Nation’s fish and wildlife resources and their habitats for the benefit of the American people. I am honored and humbled at the opportunity to appear before you and 

happy to answer any questions you may have concerning my qualifications and willingness to lead what I believe to be the finest organization of fish and wildlife conservation professionals in the world. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so very much for your eloquent testimony. 

I have a couple of required questions for your nomination. 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, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection, with respect to your 

responsibilities? 

Mr. ASHE. I do. 

Senator BOXER. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, 

documents and electronic and other forms of communication are 

provided to this committee and its staff and other appropriate committees in a timely manner? 

Mr. ASHE. 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. ASHE. I do not. 

Senator BOXER. OK. 
26 

Let me just say, I don’t have a lot of questions, Mr. Ashe, because to me, you are an excellent nominee. Your dedication to this, 

your willingness to work with all of us, I think it shines through. 

I am going to put a couple of things in the record. The Ranking 

Member and I are very good friends. We agree on a lot of things, 

and we disagree on some things. It is no great shock to know that 

we do disagree on the issue of climate change. 

Instead of getting through a back and forth, in my view, I am 

going to put at this point into the record a release that was put 

out by President Bush’s Interior Secretary, Dirk Kempthorne, and 

this is what it said: ‘‘Today, as President Bush announced U.S. 

support for development of a new framework on climate change, 

Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne affirmed that the ongoing work of the new Interior Department Climate Change Task 

Force is essential to ensuring that his department fulfills its mission.’’ He says, ‘‘I recently created the Department of the Interior 

Task Force to study climate change, because of its possible effects 

on our ability to be good stewards of wildlife, national parks and 

other landscapes, as well as our responsibility to help moderate 

greenhouse gas emissions.’’ He says ‘‘This is a priority for both Department leaders and employees in the field.’’ 

[The referenced information was not received at time of print.] 

Senator BOXER. I put that in the record, because there is a misconception here that this is turning into a Republican versus 

Democratic battle. Maybe it is today, but it certainly wasn’t at that 

time. 

The other thing I want to put in the record is very important, 

and I think Senator Udall, you would be interested in this. There 

is a very important report that was put out about a year ago. It 

is called Global Warming’s Threat to Hunting and Fishing. In the 

report, at the top page, it is a quote from your dad. It says, ‘‘Each 

generation has its own rendevous with the land. By choice or by 

default, we will carve out a land legacy for our heirs.’’ Stuart Lee 

Udall. Then it goes on, and the people who issued these report are: 

Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, the Isaak Walton League of 

America, the Bass ESPN Outdoors, the Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies, the Coastal Conservation Association, the American Sportfishing Association, Pheasants Forever, the Boone and 

Crockett Club. This report was edited and supported by the Wildlife Management Institute and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. 

So the reason I want to put this in the record, and I will just 

read one paragraph in my time remaining, ‘‘The urgency to address 

the effects of climate change on fish and wildlife have become increasingly evident. Already, waterfowl exhibit changes in seasonal 

distribution. Higher water temperatures and diminished stream 

habitat are threatening coldwater fish, such as trout and salmon. 

Big game are shifting to more northerly latitudes and to higher elevations to escape summer heat and find suitable forage. With each 

passing season, the need to develop strategies and invest in management practices to assist fish and wildlife adapting to a warmer 

world becomes more imperative.’’ 

[The referenced information was not received at time of print.] 
27 

Senator BOXER. So now again, this isn’t any politician saying 

this. This is Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, et cetera. 

So I just put those in the record, because I think they stand, I 

think they are eloquent statements without politics getting into it, 

mine or anybody else’s. 

So I guess my one question is, because this is so important to all 

of us here, do you promise us that science will lead you in all of 

these issues, regardless of what it is? Will science lead you? Will 

you tell us what the science shows you? It is up to us to balance 

the science with other issues that we face. But from you, I believe 

it is your job, that is what I believe your job is, to let us know what 

the science is on what is happening to our fish and wildlife. Would 

you promise that today? 

Mr. ASHE. I will, Senator Boxer. The acquisition and the application of the best available science is a priority for me with respect 

to everything that the Fish and Wildlife Service does. I think it is 

particularly important in the arena of changing climate that we understand the implications and the effects of a changing climate system on fish and wildlife resources. Because that is our responsibility. Our responsibility is to ensure that we are taking the steps 

today that are going to be providing a healthy fish and wildlife resource 10 and 20 and 30 years from now. 

So it is very important for us that we make the right investments today, knowing what we know, and using what the best 

science available tells us. 

Senator BOXER. Of course. When I mention climate change, and 

put these in the record, I don’t mean to suggest that that is the 

only threat out there to our fish and wildlife. They are going 

through a lot of other issues in my State, as well as climate 

change. 

Last thing, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record letters from a range of business, conservation, hunting and fishing organizations that support Dan Ashe’s nomination. These include National Wildlife Refuge Association, American Fisheries Society, 

American Fly Fishing Trade Association, American Sports Fishing 

Association, National Marine Manufacturers Association, the Nature Conservancy, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Ducks Unlimited and the National Wild Turkey Federation. 

With that I call on Senator Inhofe. 

[The referenced information was not received at time of print.] 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

First of all, I would agree, and you can add my name to that list. 

I can’t think of anyone more qualified for this job, with your background, which has been covered thoroughly. 

I would ask unanimous consent, so that I don’t use all my time 

responding to your opening remarks, that my opening remarks and 

my testimony to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce 

6 days ago be made a part of the record at this point in the record. 

Senator BOXER. Absolutely, without objection. 

[The referenced information was not received at time of print.] 

Senator INHOFE. Now, Mr. Ashe, when I first read this thing, examine everything we do, every decision we make, every dollar we 
28 

spend through the lens of climate change, what was your role in 

adopting that language? 

Mr. ASHE. That language specifically I don’t believe I played any 

particular role. I did play a leading role in the development of that 

strategic plan. So I, as Science Advisor, pulled together our climate 

strategic plan team, which spanned the entire agency. It was that 

team that put together that strategic plan and I certainly nurtured 

that to its end point. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. 

The confirmation I would like to have from you is that you would 

commit that you would manage this Agency, if confirmed, to the 

original statutory mandate and that you will ensure listing decisions and other important business is conducted according to the 

strictly defined statutory definition, which is found in section 1533 

of 16 U.S.C.A. 

Mr. ASHE. Yes, sir. Our job, the mission of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service is to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife 

and plants and their habitat for the continuing benefit of the American people. We have a number of statutory provisions that we are 

responsible fro administering. I will do that. 

Senator INHOFE. Good. I appreciate that. 

The next question I have has to do with the Candidate Conservation Agreements. We went through in December of last year the 

issuance of a proposal to list the sand dune lizard, habitat mostly 

in the New Mexico and the Texas area. But then later on, the discussion moved on to the lesser prairie chicken, which is of course 

Oklahoma and other surrounding States. 

It is my feeling, after looking at this, that the Candidate Conservation efforts were pretty much undermined. This is where we 

get the landowners, the stakeholders, those people that I talked 

about in my opening statement, having to do with Partners Program, and the Candidate Conservation agreements. I guess, I believe that there is a lot of effort now just to run this thing with 

a political agenda. That is not you, but this is the thing that I believe is going on now. 

So the question I would ask is, if you are confirmed, will you 

commit to me that you will increase the use of CCAs and that you 

will give them adequate time to work so that we can allow ranchers and others to stay in business and protect the species at the 

same time, which is what they believe the CCA program is designed to do? 

Mr. ASHE. Yes, sir, I will. The Candidate Conservation program 

will be a personal priority of mine, and is a priority for the Agency. 

Because that is the effort that allows us to take action early on and 

hopefully avoid the need to list species in the first place. That 

should be our first option. 

Senator INHOFE. I have been told by some of the individuals who 

are in, these would be stakeholders, that the local, I stress local 

Fish and Wildlife and Bureau of Land Management officials felt 

that we did not exercise the CCA part of the determination as we 

should have. I would like to have you check that out with those individuals, if you are confirmed, to find out what those local officials 

felt about the CCA program. Would you do that? 
29 

Mr. ASHE. I will do that, Senator, and if I am confirmed, I would 

very much like to work with you to look for opportunities for us to 

improve our ability to apply the Candidate Conservation program. 

Senator INHOFE. When you were in my office, I told you, we kind 

of relived the successes of the Partnership Program. Again, I don’t 

remember whether you were out there at the hearing that we had 

in Oklahoma. That was an eye opener, it demonstrated very clearly 

that people did want to practice good environmental and conservation practices on their land. I have been concerned that several millions of dollars came out of that program for the ‘‘assistance and 

response to climate change.’’ I would ask that if you are confirmed, 

would you commit to return the Partnership Program to its purpose, which is to work with private landowners to restore fish and 

wildlife habitat on private lands? Would you do that? 

Mr. ASHE. Senator, if I am confirmed, I will work with you to ensure that that program continues to do that. Because I believe that 

is exactly what the program is doing today. What we need to do 

is actually expand that concept and that framework. Earlier this 

year, I was with Secretary Salazar in the Flint Hills of Kansas, 

where we were standing shoulder to shoulder with livestock producers who are supporting our effort to establish a 1.1 million acre 

conservation area to put easements on that landscape and preserve 

that working way of life. It was Jim Minerath, who is a private 

lands biologist for the Fish and Wildlife Service, who has really 

been the spark that has made that entire partnership possible. 

But the idea of working with landowners, particularly in working 

landscapes like the Flint Hills, like the Rocky Mountain Front of 

Montana, that is an important. 

Senator INHOFE. Like the Little Sahara in Oklahoma. 

Mr. ASHE. Yes. There you go. 

Senator INHOFE. You just talked about Kansas, that is just to the 

north of the area near Woodward, OK, that we have one of the 

greatest success stories in the program. So yes, I know that you believe in that, I know that you want to enhance that. 

Mr. ASHE. I was not at the hearing that you mentioned with 

former Director Hall. But I have been in Oklahoma and I spent 

time with our private lands biologist there, with public school 

teachers in the Tulsa area. It is tremendous, the kind of work that 

we are doing there and the kind of reaction that we get from both 

the landowners and the young children who are going to be tomorrow’s conservationists. So I absolutely believe that that is a key element of our success. 

Senator INHOFE. I appreciate that. It is actually in Edmond, 

Oklahoma, we have had some huge successes in teaching these 

young people and bringing them up. That is a very important part 

of this program. 

I am sorry I went a little bit over. 

Senator BOXER. That is OK, that is fine. 

Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Mr. Ashe, again, 

welcome to our committee. 

One of the most important functions of this committee is oversight, it is to make sure that the policies of our Nation are being 

properly implemented. On the Water and Wildlife Committee, 
30 

there is no higher priority than to make sure we get the Natural 

Resources Damage Assessment right for Deepwater Horizon, because that will be the basis of what we hope will be the remedial 

plans to protect future generations from the damage that was 

caused by Deepwater Horizon. The subcommittee I chair held a 

hearing on the 111th Congress to try to get a grip on how the Federal Agencies were proceeding on the NRDA assessment. 

As I understand it, Fish and Wildlife will play a critical role in 

that regard, as the lead trustee in making those evaluations. So I 

am going to ask a question for the record, because I think it is absolutely critical that we, the Environment and Public Works Committee, get information that is important to make sure that the 

damage assessment is being done in the most professional way. 

So my question to you, if confirmed as Director of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, will you commit to keep this committee informed 

about progress and let us know about any issues, whether financial 

or otherwise, that might impede this Natural Resource Damage Assessment? 

Mr. ASHE. If confirmed, I do make that commitment, Senator 

Cardin. I do think that is where my experience as a professional 

staff member in the House of Representatives, I have sat on the 

other side of the dais, I know what it is like to be in that position, 

and it will be a priority for me. 

Senator CARDIN. We need to work together on this issue, there 

is no question about it. It is a very difficult circumstance, an unprecedented spill with unprecedented potential damages. The remedial plans are going to be difficult under the most ideal circumstances. But getting the damage assessment right, to me, is 

going to be absolutely essential. We look forward to working with 

you in that regard, and I expect our Subcommittee, with the Chairman’s consent, will be holding additional hearings on the damage 

assessment and on the remedial plans. Thank you for that commitment. 

I want to ask one more question as it relates to the issue of climate change. Looking at it from a different perspective, I want to 

talk a little bit about the impact it has had on my State of Maryland. Blackwater, which we talked about before, Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, is critically important to the environment of 

the Chesapeake Bay, our entire region. It has the most important 

wetlands that affect the Bay. It is important for the bald eagle, and 

the list goes on and on and on. 

Blackwater is disappearing. According to the 2008 Society for 

Wetlands Science report, Blackwater is losing on average 300 acres 

of land per year due to rising water levels, with 5,000 acres of 

marshland lost since the 1930’s. So we are seeing much of this land 

disappear because of sea level increased. 

Now, there are reasons, but clearly, warmer climate has had an 

impact on sea level in our region, and could affect, have a dramatic 

impact, not just on Blackwater but have a dramatic impact on our 

entire region. It is my understanding Blackwater is not the only example where we have had sea level rise increases as a result of climate change. 

So I guess my question to you, as part of your work, will you be 

looking at refuges generally, particularly Blackwater, to see wheth-
31 

er the best science is used as a result of climate change to try to 

mitigate as much as possible the loss of these value refuges. 

Mr. ASHE. I will, Senator Cardin. 

The Blackwater is not just important to me, because it is such 

a great refuge, but because my father did much of the acquisition 

work at Blackwater, and he worked with the State of Maryland in 

acquiring the adjacent State management areas at Taylor’s Island 

and Fishing Bay. So that represents a great landscape for the Fish 

and Wildlife resource. 

We have 177 coastal refuges. So the potential for sea level rise 

is important to the management of the resources that we are entrusted with. It is also an important issue for the taxpayer. Senator 

Barrasso mentioned earlier that the taxpayers’ money must be 

spent where it does the most good. So as we look at the future, we 

could look at a refuge like Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge in 

the State of Florida, which is the most productive nesting beach for 

sea turtles in North America. 

Property, land in and around Archie Carr can cost as much as 

$1.5 million an acre. So as we make decisions about acquiring additional land at refuges like Archie Carr, we need to understand sea 

level rise, so that we are applying the taxpayers’ dollars where they 

are going to have the most benefit, and they are going to have a 

lasting benefit for that resource. In that case, it is a nesting sea 

turtle. In the case of Blackwater, it is our waterfowl resource that 

is an important lifeblood for the economy in Maryland for waterfowl hunting, and certainly an important and passionate pursuit of 

my own. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, and Madam Chair, I would just like 

to point out again for the record that your father, Mr. Ashe, was 

largely responsible for helping develop the Federal program for the 

Chesapeake Bay. I am glad to see that you are following in your 

father’s footsteps. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Just for the benefit of all members, we have 

a vote scheduled for noon. I think we are going to be on time. 

Senator Barrasso, you are next. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Ashe, I appreciate very much your openness and frankness 

in answering the questions. I agree with Senator Inhofe about your 

qualifications, your commitment, obviously hearing about your father’s role in this has prepared you very well. 

When you said at the end of your testimony that you will give 

it your very best, I absolutely believe you. 

We had a chance to talk about that area of nesting sea turtles 

in Florida when you came to my office. I want to get to the issue 

now of the recovery of the gray wolf. It is a big issue, as you heard 

from Senator Crapo of Idaho, you have heard from our colleague, 

Senator Baucus of Montana. I would like you to explain to the people of our States why the gray wolf is on the Endangered Species 

List in the first place in places like Wyoming, when there are thousands of gray wolves in Canada. 

Mr. ASHE. Thank you, Senator Barrasso, and thank you for the 

opportunity you gave me to speak in your office. I appreciate the 

warm welcome you gave me there. 
32 

The question you ask about gray wolf, the Endangered Species 

Act asks the Fish and Wildlife Service to make listing determinations when a species is endangered or threatened in all or a portion, or a significant portion of its range. It also, when we look at 

listing species, it asks us to look at the species as a whole, a subspecies or distinct population segment. 

So our job is to look at the science, and if a species is endangered 

in a significant portion of its range, like the bald eagle, the bald 

eagle was always healthy and secure in Canada and in Alaska, but 

it was clearly endangered in a significant portion of its range, 

which was the lower 48 States. The wolf had been extirpated in its 

traditional range in the lower 48 States, so that is why it was listed. 

Senator BARRASSO. There is a lot of discussion about what the 

historic range of the gray wolf has been. We actually have a chart 

of the historic range of the gray wolf, and it includes forested communities in Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island. That 

is the historic range. So people of the Rocky Mountain West, when 

they see the wolf, there are now wolves in Oregon, they have gone 

all over the place, you know the jokes about where are they going 

to put it next. But this is the historic range of the gray wolf, and 

that is what the concerns continue to be. 

Mr. ASHE. Sir, our objective, in March or early April, we will be 

proposing to de-list the wolf in the western Great Lakes, where we 

have a biologically recovered population, and we have three States 

who have developed, and we have been able to approve their management plans for the gray wolf in the Great Lakes States. We are 

developing a recovery plan for the Mexican wolf, working with our 

State and other partners. We are revising our recovery plan for the 

Mexican wolf. As you know, we are working through the crisis that 

we have in the northern Rocky Mountains. 

So as we in the Fish and Wildlife Service look at recovery for the 

gray wolf, we are looking at those three populations as representative of recovery. 

Senator BARRASSO. I like the fact that you used the word crisis, 

because that is what the people in the Rocky Mountain west believe this is, it is a crisis with the wolf. So thank you. 

In the remaining time, when you were in my office last week, I 

asked whether you thought the Congress intended the Endangered 

Species Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, NEPA to be climate 

change-regulating tools when they passed the bills. I think you told 

me that they were not, at the time they passed the bills. I think 

that is correct. 

I submitted some written questions to the Agency in November. 

I asked if the Fish and Wildlife Service believed there were constraints on the ability of the Service to save threatened or endangered species from climate change and the issues of climate change. 

The Agency’s response was a little different. They said they are 

going to continue to assess its statutory authority and the regulations and policy created under it to fulfill the intention of Congress 

in crafting, passing and amending these laws. 

So I guess the question is, which is it? Did Congress intend these 

environmental laws to be climate tools, or did they not? Because 

I agreed with what you told me in my office last week. 
33 

Mr. ASHE. Congress did not intend them to be climate change 

tools, and the Fish and Wildlife Service is not the responsible authority for the regulation of greenhouse gases. As we discussed, we 

do have a responsibility for the conservation of fish, wildlife and 

plants, and in this case, endangered fish, wildlife and plants. So as 

to our authorities to take actions to conserve those species, meaning habitat restoration, intervention, where we need to do captive 

propagation and reintroduction of those species, we believe we have 

all the authorities that we need to do that work. I think our response indicated that if we see additional authorities that we need, 

we will come to Congress and ask you for those authorities. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Ashe. Thank you, Madam 

Chairman. My time is up. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

We will go to Senator Lautenberg next. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Ashe, you defined the threat to the bat population as very 

serious in your remarks. I ask whether or not the impact to humans is also an awareness that the public and that we here should 

focus on. 

Mr. ASHE. Is the threat to humans—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. The threat to the bat population. 

Mr. ASHE. Senator, I am not aware of any linkage in terms of 

health problems. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. How about the West Nile virus or that 

kind of thing? 

Mr. ASHE. Clearly, there is a class of diseases generally termed 

zoonotic diseases, which are potentially transferable between wildlife populations and human populations. Several years ago, we had 

a concern about the avian flu. So there are periodically concerns 

about the potential for transfer between wildlife populations and 

human populations. 

So we have to always be thoughtful of that. That is why wildlife 

disease is a particularly important issue in conservation. We need 

to have increasing amounts of information about how disease affects wildlife populations throughout their range. That certainly is 

the challenge with white nose syndrome. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. What steps thus far has Fish and Wildlife 

taken to combat this problem? 

Mr. ASHE. The problem of white nose syndrome? 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes. 

Mr. ASHE. We have taken the leadership role at the Federal 

level. We—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. What is involved, Mr. Ashe, in that leadership role? 

Mr. ASHE. We have taken Fish and Wildlife resources and combined those with resources in the U.S. Geological Survey and others to address some of the key scientific questions about the white 

nose syndrome. We have established a national coordinator position 

in our northeastern region. We have taken the leadership in developing a national management plan for the white nose syndrome, 

which is currently out for public comment. 

So we have been engaging, as the disease has moved to the west, 

we have been engaging with our partners in the Park Service, the 
34 

Forest Service and the BLM and our State partners to try to put 

in place voluntary measures to close caves as necessary, and also 

to inform the public, cavers and others, about the ways that they 

can prevent the spread of this fungus. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes, this is an enormous threat to the ecological balance that we strive so hard to maintain. I don’t know 

that it is getting the attention that it might, and that is why I have 

developed this emergency wildlife disease threat to try and deal 

with it more aggressively. I hope that we can find a way to do that. 

Even those who question whether global warming is man-made 

acknowledge the average temperature of the planet has risen significantly over the past century. Shouldn’t we all be able to agree 

that fish and wildlife needs the resources to help wildlife adapt to 

the warming that is already happening? No matter what the cause 

is of the rising temperatures. I look at polar bears and note the 

threats to their continuation. We look at species of fish and we note 

that there are species highly endangered. 

What can we do to get some consensus of view as to what we are 

obliged to do to curb these problems? 

Mr. ASHE. I want, Senator, to thank you first of all for your leadership on white nose syndrome. That is a particularly vexing and 

problematic issue for the Fish and Wildlife Service. Having your 

support has been invaluable as we have tried to reconcile our kind 

of uncertainties and need for new knowledge with the imperative 

to take action. So I want to thank you for your leadership. 

I do want to say that I think with regard to climate change, I 

think we share a common interest, that we need to have additional 

scientific information and understanding about the effects on fish 

and wildlife populations, so that we can begin to do the work that 

is necessary on the ground. I think it is bringing those two together, the need for more information with the need to take action 

now in the face of uncertainties. Because the things we are doing 

with private landowners and other partners on the landscape today 

are going to provide the habitat and the conditions for these species 

20, 30, 40, 50 years from now. 

So the kind of marrying of those two, the need for information 

with the need to act I think is going to be key as we go forward. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Madam Chairman, I want to enter into the 

record a letter I have that expresses from a bunch of NGO’s, expressing support for the Wild Disease Emergency Act. It includes 

the American Wildlife Society, and the Natural Resources Defense 

Council, et cetera. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

[The referenced information was not received at time of print.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you 

very much, Mr. Ashe. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you 

again, Mr. Ashe. I just have four pretty focused questions. 

First, have you ever provided any internal agency documents 

which were not then public to an environmental NGO which were 

then used in adverse legal actions against the Department of Interior? 
35 

Mr. ASHE. No, sir, not to my knowledge. 

Senator VITTER. Second, Mr. Ashe, a lot of our discussion is 

about sound science. I think we all agree that sound science should 

be the top guiding factor. We may disagree about what that means 

in particular circumstances. 

In the recent Interior action I am most concerned about in the 

Gulf, as you know, the President appointed a 30-day review commission of expert scientists who gave him a report. Then, as I am 

sure you are aware, the White House changed elements of the executive summary of the report to suggest that those scientists supported the moratorium, which they didn’t. 

They said so publicly, and they objected to that. In fact, the Federal district court judge that I alluded to who has since issued a 

civil contempt order against the Department also had something to 

say about that. 

Do you think that episode is a good model in terms of using 

sound science to guide policy? 

Mr. ASHE. Senator Vitter, that is not an area within the area of 

the Fish and Wildlife Service. I am not familiar with it in detail, 

so I don’t think I can provide an answer to your question regarding 

that. 

Senator VITTER. Well, certainly, it is one of the biggest things Interior has dealt with in the last year, and certainly it was a significant media and public story. So do you have a personal reaction to 

what you know about it? 

Mr. ASHE. I guess I would say to you, Senator, I know what I 

read in the paper on a matter like that. So giving you my personal 

opinion about it would be just that, it would be an opinion on my 

behalf. 

Senator VITTER. I understand that. Can I have your personal 

opinion about it? 

Mr. ASHE. I think, Senator, I guess I would be happy to discuss 

my personal opinions with you in person. I don’t think it is appropriate for me to do it in a hearing such as this, where I am here 

to speak to my qualifications to running the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

Senator VITTER. Well, you know, normally, one of the standard 

questions a committee asks a high level nominee is, are you prepared to come before us when we ask you to and give us your best 

advice. Not necessarily the company line, your best advice in general, are you prepared to do that? 

Mr. ASHE. In general, I am prepared to do that, Senator, with 

regard to the things that I am qualified to provide you with advice 

on. I will do that, any time, should I be confirmed, I will do that 

any time the committee requests me to do that. But it would be on 

matters on which I am qualified to give you advice, sir. 

Senator VITTER. OK. Well, in this regard, could I ask you to read 

up on this and submit to us in writing your reaction to that incident, which goes to a broad issue of the use or mis-use of sound 

science in the Interior Department? 

Mr. ASHE. Senator, I would be happy to speak to the people in 

the Department who are expert on that matter and have them give 

their advice to you on that matter. Again, I don’t think it is my responsibility or place in the Administration to be providing you with 
36 

advice on any matter that falls outside of the jurisdiction of the 

Fish and Wildlife Service and the matters that we are responsible 

for. 

Senator VITTER. OK. Well, actually, I have been asking those 

folks to testify before us, before other committees about that for 

several months now. So if you could pull that off, I would appreciate it. I had made that request months ago. 

Mr. ASHE. I will do everything that I can do, Senator. 

Senator VITTER. Right. Third, let me ask you about this. One of 

the President’s appointees to the oil spill commission is the executive director of the National Resources Defense Council. Now the 

National Resources Defense Council is poised to file lawsuits 

against Interior as soon as Interior issues any drilling permits in 

the Gulf, even if it is completely consistent with the Commission’s 

recommendations. Does that strike you as a conflict or an otherwise odd situation? 

Mr. ASHE. Senator, I think it is a situation that we are often confronted with. An analogy within the Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

area of responsibility is a recently completed effort where we had 

a Federal advisory committee on guidelines for the operation of 

wind turbines and the avoidance of impact and effect on migratory 

birds. On that Federal advisory committee are representatives of 

the wind industry, representatives of our State partners, representatives of non-governmental organizations, all of whom are providing us with advice on how to put together a voluntary framework, so that hopefully wind turbine projects, the development, the 

construction and the operation of them will be consistent with the 

requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

Any of those people could, subsequent to that, decide to challenge 

us on an individual matter of implementation. That could come 

from the industry, it could come from an environmental organization. I think what we have to do is respect their right to do that. 

What we are asking them in that context is their best advice, and 

recognizing that at some point in the future, they may decide that 

it is necessary for them to take legal action against us. 

Senator VITTER. So if a person in that situation gives his or her 

best advice, if the overall commission agrees with that, adopts it, 

if an agency follows it and then if that person’s NGO sues the 

Agency over it, you wouldn’t find that odd? 

Mr. ASHE. If they are following the guidelines, in this case, if 

they are following our guidelines, I think there is always difference 

of interpretation on matters like that. So if an individual wind company feels like they followed the guidelines to the best of their understanding, but we simply have a disagreement, then it is their 

privilege to challenge the Fish and Wildlife Service’s interpretation 

and action. I think we have to respect that, if we are going to use 

those kinds of Federal advisory committees and other mechanisms 

to get the best advice that we can from the industry and from the 

environmental community. 

Senator VITTER. Madam Chair, I have one more question. Can I 

ask it? 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you. 
37 

Mr. Ashe, last year, a district court judge in the Ninth Circuit 

said the Fish and Wildlife Service had ordered a protection plan 

under the Endangered Species Act that was ‘‘arbitrary, capricious 

and unlawful.’’ He also noted that ‘‘The public cannot afford sloppy 

science.’’ The same judge said NEPA requires agencies to look at 

the human impact of their decisions. 

Does the Fish and Wildlife Service look at the human impact of 

its decisions in that NEPA context and exactly how does it do that? 

Mr. ASHE. I am not familiar with the specific reference that you 

are making. But I would be happy to, if you could give me, if your 

staff or you could give me the specific citation, I would be happy 

to respond to you for the record on that point. 

Senator VITTER. OK. Well, of course, we will do that. But the 

idea of human impact is not just about this case, it is about NEPA. 

Mr. ASHE. Correct. The National Environmental Policy Act requires us to do analysis that looks at significant effects on the 

human environment. That is the terminology in the National Environmental Policy Act. We comply with that, which is certainly not 

to say that courts always agree with us. As Senator Barrasso and 

Senator Baucus have both mentioned previously, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service has tried twice to de-list the gray wolf in the 

Northern Rocky Mountains, and courts unfortunately have disagreed with us in those cases. 

So from time to time, courts to disagree with us about the interpretation and implementation of the law. 

Senator VITTER. Final sub-question about that, does that human 

impact analysis include impact on jobs or economics? 

Mr. ASHE. Again, the specifics, let me get back to you for the 

record on that, sir. 

Senator VITTER. OK. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

I learned a lot from that series of questions about NEPA. I thank 

you for that series of questions, Senator. 

Well, I think that your time in the hot seat is over, and we are 

all impressed with you. I need to say that questions will be due 

from EPW members a week from today. Get your questions in, Senators. Responses from the nominee will be due a week after that. 

So you will be busy cramming with your answers. But we really do 

thank you for being willing to take on this task. We know it came 

about in a very unfortunate situation. We however are so pleased 

that you are carrying on the traditions of your family. We again 

thank the family for coming and—wait, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. It is very unusual, Mr. Ashe, that we get people 

either before this committee or other committees for confirmation 

hearings that have the background and qualifications that goes beyond generations that you have. I know without even saying that 

you are going to be looking back at the history from the very beginning of what you did and what your function is and your interest 

in getting from the private sector and all the programs that we 

mentioned. 

So I think, Madam Chairman, we are very fortunate to have Mr. 

Ashe as our nominee. 

Senator BOXER. Well, we do agree on that. 

We stand adjourned. 
38 

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 
39 

Environment and Public Works Committee Hearing 

February 15,2011 

Follow-up Questions for Written Submission 

Senator Barbara Boxer 

1. Mr. Ashe, I believe a commitment to scientific integrity is critical to being Director of the 

Fish and Wildlife Service. President Obama and Secretary Salazar have both committed 

to a policy of scientific integrity at the Interior Department. 

If confirmed, how do you intend to fulfill the President's commitment to scientific 

integrity in your role as Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service? 

Response: I believe sound science and scientific integrity are the foundation for 

everything we do. If confirmed, my top priority is to ensure that U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service) employees have the best available science to make the management and 

regulatory decisions they are entrusted with making, and they have the support of their 

leadership to make recommendations and decisions reflecting that science. 

2. Mr. Ashe, the Endangered Species Act is one of our nation's most important 

environmental laws and has protected iconic species like the bald eagle. The ESA has 

also long-enjoyed bipartisan support. 

The ESA's decades-long track record of success is built on the use of the best available 

science. It is important that the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service 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 

hundreds of 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. 

3. Mr. Ashe, the health of the nation's wildlife refuges is important for both wildlife and 

local communities, which received $1. 7 billion from recreational visits to refuges in 2006 

alone. Unfortunately, rising costs and many years of stagnant budgets for operation and 

maintenance of the National Wildlife Refuge System left a multi-billion dollar 

maintenance backlog. Funding in the Recovery Act and recent increases in 

appropriations for the Refuge System will help address critical near-term needs, but a 

long-term and sustainable solution is needed. 
40 

Do you believe funding and maintenance of our refuges are important issues, and if 

confinned, will you take steps to address the state of our wildlife refuges? 

Response: Yes, I served as Chief of the National Wildlife Refuge System and 

understand (he imparlance of funding the maintenance of our refuges. If confinned, I 

will ensure that the Service continues to address the highest priority maintenance needs 

of the Refuge System with the resources available for this purpose. Maintenance funding 

for the Refuge System is critical to meeting habitat and visitor services goals. Wellmaintained facilities and equipment enable the Refuge System to manage habitat, serve 

visitors, and accomplish core refuge operations. 

4. Mr. Ashe, our nation's most respected scientists have shown that the changing climate 

will have considerable impacts on wildlife and their habitats across the United States. A 

wide array of conservation, hunting and fishing organizations also agree with this 

assessment. 

Given the significant challenges that climate change presents, what role do you believe 

the Fish and Wildlife Service can play to address the impacts of climate change on fish 

and wildlife? How can the Service work with partners to address the growing threat 

climate change presents? 

Response: The Service is authorized and obligated, by statute, to conserve fish and 

wildlife and their habitat, and to protect species from the hannful impacts of stressors 

regardless of the source. Our field biologists are dealing - on a daily basis - with the 

negative effects of climate change on species and habitat. Working with a broad array of 

partners, like the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFW A), The Nature 

Conservancy, and Ducks Unlimited, the Service is leading the way to develop a national 

strategy to address the impacts of climate change on fish and wildlife and their habitat. 

All of these efforts continue to be guided by statutory responsibilities and authorities, in 

line with many conservation partners, and within the mainstream of the broader 

conservation community. 

2 
41 

Environment and Public Works Committee Hearing 

February 15, 2011 

Follow-up Questions for Written Submission 

Senator James Inbofe 

1. As I mentioned in my opening statement, I have concerns about the Service's recently 

issued climate change strategic plan, which states, among other things, that the "future of 

fish and wildlife and people hangs in the balance." It also calls on the Service to 

transform its basic mission, stating that it should "examine everything we do, every 

decision we make, and every dollar we spend through the lens of climate change." 

a. First, please specify for the record exactly what your role was in developing the 

climate change strategic plan. 

Response: As Science Advisor to the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and then in the capacity of Deputy Director, I provided overall guidance 

and input on the development of the climate change strategic plan. I shaped the 

process for its development, including formation of a diverse team of employees 

which developed the strategy; making the strategy available for internal agencywide comment; and publishing the draft strategy for public comment. I met 

regularly with Service staff responsible for drafting the plan, reviewed it, and 

recommended it for final approval by late-Director Sam Hamilton. It is important 

to note that development of this strategic plan spanned two Administrations, and 

three Service Directors: Steve Williams, Dale Hall and Sam Hamilton. The 

process and substance of this effort had the full engagement and support of 

Department and Service leadership during its entire course. 

b. Second, do you agree with the above statements-that is, do you agree that all 

decisions should be made "through the lens of climate change"? 

Response: Yes, I agree with the statement within its context as part of a strategic 

plan. The strategic plan is aspirational, and not a mandatory requirement. It is not 

a regulation; not a budget directive; not a policy requirement. Climate change is 

significantly affecting, and will increasingly affect fish and wildlife resources for 

which the Service is authorized and obligated, by statute, to conserve. The 

Service has an obligation to consider climate change, like other stressors on fish 

and wildlife and their habitat, in order to make responsible and fully-informed 

management decisions that make the best use of taxpayer dollars. Ultimately, 

however, ifI am confirmed, it will be my responsibility and commitment to 

ensure that decisions will be made based on the statutory, regulatory, and policy 

frameworks that are applicable. 

c. If you are confirmed to this position, will you commit to me that you will manage 

according to the agency's original statutory mandate, and that you will ensure 
42 

listing decisions and other important business are conducted according to strictly 

defined statutory criteria, and not "through the lens of climate change"? 

Response: If confirmed, I will ensure that the Service continues to faithfully and 

respectfully implement the law; acquire and apply the best available science; and 

that all of actions will reflect commitment to transparency and accountability, 

2. In December of last year, the Service issued a proposal to list the Sand Dune Lizard, 

which inhabits parts of New Mexico and Texas, as endangered. I find this troubling for 

several reasons. Many businesses - farmers, ranchers, and oil and gas producers -

worked through 2010 to negotiate so-called "Candidate Conservation Agreements," or 

CCAs. These agreements, which were reached with local officials from the Service and 

Bureau of Land Management, require signatories to help to protect and preserve habitat 

for species. In this case, we're talking about the Sand Dune Lizard, but the Lesser prairie 

Chicken is another good example. 

These are exactly the sort of agreements the Service should reach. Yet the proposal to list 

the Sand Dune Lizard as endangered gave almost no credit to the candidate conservation 

efforts - or the significant efforts by landowners that live on the land. 

It appears that the CCA efforts are being undermined by political officials at 

headquarters, because they are not regulatory, they do not penalize, and they do not stop 

business activities they oppose. 

a. Can you explain why Interior neglected to wait for CCA negotiations to produce 

results, before proceeding further in the listing processes for these species 

Response: In 200 I, the Service determined that the dunes sagebrush lizard was 

warranted for listing but precluded by higher priorities and reviewed and 

confirmed that finding annually, as required by law. The ESA requires the 

Service to make expeditious progress in adding candidate species to the list, and 

although it often seems at cross-purposes with efforts like those for the sand dune 

lizard, the Service docs not have authority to postpone required listing 

determinations. With respect to the conservation benefits of CCAs and CCAAs 

for the sand dune lizard, the Service does consider these benefits when 

determining whether to list a species as a threatened or endangered species. In 

addition to the potcntial to affcct the listing dctcrmination and make listing 

unnecessary, CCAAs have the great benefit to landowners of providing certainty 

that, if a species is ultimately listed, the conservation commitments reflected in 

the CCAA will satisfy ESA compliance for the activities covered under the 

agreement. 

The Service commends the success of Candidate Conservation Agreements 

(CCA) and Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances (CCAAs) for 

the dunes sagebrush lizard (also known as the Sand Dune Lizard) and the lesser 

prairie-chicken. We believe these agreements are producing results and strongly 
43 

encourage the continued voluntary participation in these agreements. The 

collaborative approach between the Service and Bureau of Land Management to 

develop these umbrella agreements (signed in 2008) allows both private land 

owners and operators, such as ranchers and oil and gas companies, to participate 

in the conservation of these two species on both Federal and non-Federal lands. 

b. And if you are confirmed, will you commit to me that you will increase the use of 

CCAs, and that you will give them adequate time to work, so we can allow 

ranchers and others to stay in business and protect species at the same time? 

Response: Yes, if confirmed you have my full support to expand the use and 

application ofCCAs and CCAAs. However, as reflected in my earlier 

commitments to you, I will make these and all decisions based on applicable 

statutory requirements. At times, statutory deadlines such as those under the 

Endangered Species Act, may require the Service to take action on specific 

timelines. 

3. Can you confirm whether the Fish and Wildlife Servicc has allocated funding and 

initiated the status review for the Lesser Prairie Chicken? Is it true that the local FWS and 

BLM officials in the states affected by the Lesser Prairie Chicken do not want to proceed 

with the listing process at this time, but instead wanted to proceed with Candidate 

Conservation Agreements with the oil and gas industry, cattle ranchers, conservation 

groups, and the agencies? 

Response: On June 9, 1998, the Service determined that the lesser prairie-chicken was 

warranted for listing but precluded by higher priorities and considered it a high priority 

candidate with a numbcr two listing priority. The Servicc is in the initial stages of the 

listing process for the lesser prairie-chicken under the Endangered Species Act. The 

Service anticipates that over the next 18 months, it will be developing a proposed listing 

rule for the lesser prairie-chicken. 

The Service, State wildlife agencies, private landowners and energy companies 

(including some members of the oil and gas industry and other alternative energy 

development enterprises such as wind energy) are committed to lesser prairie-chicken 

conservation through CCAAs and CCAs. CCAAs provide landowners and energy 

developers the opportunity to implement conservation practices along with assurances 

that, if the species is listed, they can continue to manage as outlined in their agreements 

with no additional requirements. Continuing to enroll landowners and energy companies 

in the CCAAs and CCAs already established in Texas and New Mexico and developing 

similar voluntary agrecmcnts with Oklahoma, Kansas and Colorado - is important. The 

Service remains committed to developing and implementing these CCAs and CCAAs for 

the lesser prairie-chicken. The Service recognizes that lesser prairie-chicken conservation 

efforts rely on continued cooperation and coordination with our partners. 
44 

4. Last year, it appears that the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program received several 

million dollars newly designated for "assistance in response to climate change." 

a. Can you please provide some examples of "climate change adaptation" projects 

undertaken with grants from the Partners Program, and how these differ from past 

grants? Have new project eligibilities have been created to accommodate this 

new funding set-aside? 

Response: In the state of Oklahoma, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program 

provided $50,000 to the Oklahoma Conservation Commission to work with 

private landowners and Conservation Districts in Western Oklahoma. The project 

featured a commitment from those landowners and Conservation Districts to carry 

out prescribed burn projects on private lands to control invasive plant species that 

are detrimental to lesser prairie chickens. Warming trends and changes in 

precipitation patterns correlated with changing climate will likely create 

conditions that favor the spread of unwanted species and detrimentally affect 

lesser prairie chicken habitat. It is anticipated that as much as 10,000 acres of 

invasive species will be controlled through this cooperative effort. It is also 

anticipated that approximately 50% or more of the final costs will be contributed 

by the Oklahoma Conservation Commission and private landowners. 

In the state of Colorado, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program is improving 

riparian habitats located in the Three Rivers Alliance community-based 

partnership area in Eastern Colorado. The scope of the work involves removing 

invasive woody species and restoring native vegetation. A grazing management 

plan will complement the physical removal of undesirable species. Warming 

conditions will likely make riparian areas such as these highly susceptible to 

invasion by unwanted species. Species benefiting include Colorado State 

Endangered Fish Species and Migratory Waterfowl. Funding contributions are 

$7,500 of Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program funds and $21,550 in matching 

partner contributions. 

Cold water fishes are particularly vulnerable to the effects of changing climate. In 

the state of Montana, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program is improving 

riparian habitat located in the Big Hole River Focus Area. The scope of the work 

includes providing a solar-powered pump to fill an alternative water supply and 

decrease grazing pressure on the river channel and associated riparian zone. A 

grazing management fence, re-vegetation, and a rotational plan will allow the area 

to stabilize, re-generate, and slow the negative impacts a general warming trend 

will have on the fishery. To be included in the project boundary are1.43 miles of 

river and 179.13 associated riparian acres. The Fluvial Arctic Grayling is among 

the species benefiting from this effort. Funding contributions include $7,920 of 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program funds and $2,149 in matching partner 

contributions. 
45 

New project eligibilities have not been created. However, these funds have been 

targeted for habitat restoration projects on private lands in priority geographic 

focus areas to bendit fish and wildlife species and habitats that ar~ most 

vulnerable to climate change. 

b. Is the Administration proposing a set-aside for climate adaptation again this year? 

Or are you now mainstreaming it into the program (0 reflect the new strategic 

plan. 

Response: The FY 2011 President's Budget rcqucsts $2 million for the Partners 

for Fish and Wildlife Program for habitat restoration projects on private lands that 

will enhance ecosystem and population resiliency to climate change. The FY 

2012 President's Budget requests $2 million for adaptive habitat management. 

Projects that will be implemented with these funds are consistent with the 

Program's strategic plan. These projects are targeted in geographic focus areas 

identified by Regional strategic plans to achieve fish and wildlife and habitat 

objectives at landscape scales for species most vulnerable to environmental 

change. 

c. If confirmed, will you commit to return the Partners Program to its original 

purpose, which is to work with private landowners to restore fish and wildlife 

habitat on private lands---and not make such decisions based on the agency's 

projections about how climate change will affect species and their habitats. 

Response: I agree that the purpose of the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program 

is to work with private landowners to restore fish and wildlife habitat, but I do not 

believe that the program has deviated from that purpose. This program is so 

successful because it has remained faithful to its purpose, and if confirmed, I will 

work to ensure that does not change. I believe the Partners program and 

restoration of fish and wildlife populations on private lands will be an essential 

part ofresponding to threats, including climate change. 

d. The Partners Program is popular and gets results. What can we do to ensure it 

remains a priority within DOT? 

Response: The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program has an impressive track 

record and has been widely successful. It will continue to be a priority for the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Continuing to demonstrate how private lands 

conservation is an integral part of a larger response to fish and wildlife 

conservation challenges will be key to ensuring that it remains a priority. 

S. In December, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in Wild Fish Conservancy v. Salazar 

(No. 09-35531, 9th Cir.Dec 7, 2010) which places heightened scrutiny on the level of 

detail that the Service will include in its incidental take authorizations under Section 

7(a)(2) biological opinions. Will the Service undertake any consultation with 
46 

stakeholders about potential policy or procedural steps it will take regarding the level of 

detail it will include in incidental take statements and authorizations? 

Response: The Service is committed to engaging stakeholders in their efforts to improve 

the ESA. Therefore, if the Service finds that changes in the level of detail included in 

incidental take statements and authorizations may be necessary, they will engage fully 

and openly with stakeholders and propose any changes through a process that includes 

public notice and comment. 

6. In July 2009, the Department of the Intcrior requestcd public input on necessary 

improvements to the ESA section 7 consultation process. As FWS Director, will you 

commit to acting upon the recommendations for improvements to the ESA Section 7 

consultations? 

Response: The Service is fully committed to making the ESA more effective and 

efficient. I believe that public input regarding improvements to the ESA is very 

important, and if confirmed, I will commit to giving full consideration to the 

recommendations provided by the public for improvements to the ESA Section 7 

consultation process. 

7. The Endangered Species Act is a very complicated law with many terms that lack clarity 

in their interpretation by stakeholders and the courts. In particular, what steps is the FWS 

wldertaking to clarify its treatment of the "adverse modification" definition? 

Response: In cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the 

Service has identified as a high priority the need for clarification of the definition for 

adverse modification, and has established an interagency work group that is considering 

potential definitions. Any proposals to define this term will be subject to public review 

and comment. 

8. Last year, the Administration supported including the B1uetin tWla as an endangered 

species under Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered 

Species (CITES) of Wildlife Flora and fauna. This listing would have banned commercial 

international trade in I3luefin tuna. Many of my colleagues in Congress opposed this 

position and encouraged the Administration to instead utilize responsible management of 

the species through the International Commission on Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, 

which has demonstrated progress in developing a sustainable fishery. In spite of the 

CITES proposal being defeated last year, now Atlantic blue fin tuna are a candidate 

species for listing under our Endangered Species Act. 

a. Do you believe that the western Atlantic stock is being more effectively managed 

than the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean stock? 

Response: The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) within the 

Department of Commerce has the lead for the management of the western 

Atlantic Bluefin tuna stock under the International Commission on the 
47 

Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) as well as the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA). As the lead agency for the management of Atlantic Bluefin tuna, I believe 

NMFS can best address this question. 

b. Do you support restricting the trade or take of Atlantic Bluefin tuna irrespective 

of the origin of the tuna and the level of sustainability within different regions? 

Response: As the lead agency for the management of Atlantic Bluefin tuna under 

ICCA T and the ESA, NMFS can best address this question. However, CITES 

parties consider thc status of the species as a whole and arc strongly discouraged 

from listing populations or stocks of species that would result in a split-listing 

because of the enforcement and implementation difficulties associated with such a 

split listing. The United States supported the listing of the Atlantic Bluefin tuna 

at the last CITES meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoPlS) because the 

listing criteria were met for both stocks and a split-listing for the species would be 

ineffective in conserving the species. 

c. Under what conditions do you believe that the international trade of a commercial 

fishery should be banned under CITES? 

Response: A CITES Appendix I listing gcnerally bans the international 

commercial trade in a listed species while an Appendix II listing regulates the 

trade to ensure that trade in this species is sustainable. Therefore, the United 

States would consider supporting the listing of a commercial fishery in CITES 

Appendix I when a species meets the biological and trade criteria for such listing 

when CITES efforts would enhance the conservation of the species under an 

existing international agreement by ensuring that international trade is legal and 

not detrimental to the survival of the species. Under CITES, if a species meets 

the criteria for an Appendix J listing, it is threatened with extinction. 

Consequently, further commercial trade would be subject to particularly strict 

regulation in order not to further endanger its survival, except in exceptional 

circumstances. 

9. Over the last two years the biological impacts of white-nose bat syndrome have become 

more widespread, as significant numbers of the U.S. bat population have been affected. 

Several of my colleagues in Congress are proposing legislation that will allow the 

Secretary ofInterior to declare a wildlife disease emergency in order to coordinate rapid 

response to this threat, and any other similar emergencies in the future. 

How would this authority differ from the SERS 't\ational Wildlife Disease Program, that 

has been activated to respond to similar past wildlife emergencies, such as Chronic 

wasting disease, tuberculosis, E. Coli, and avian influenza? 

Response: The Surveillance and Emergency Response System (SERS) National 

Wildlife Disease Program is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture'S 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), so I defer to their expertise 
48 

regarding that program. However, it is my understanding that the authority provided by 

the wildlife disease emergency legislation being considered by the Congress differs from 

the SERS National Wildlife Disease Program. The legislation being considered 

authorizes the establishment of a Wildlife Disease Emergency Fund to support wildlife 

disease response efforts. Because wildlife populations are managed by federal, slate, and 

tribal natural resource agencies, formally convening experts from these agencies to work 

collaboratively with experts from other agencies and public and private organizations is 

important to effectively respond to a wildlife disease emergency. The legislation being 

considered would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish such a Wildlife 

Disease Committee to advise the Secretary on risk assessment, preparation, monitoring, 

research, and response to a wildlife disease emergency. Also, because the resources 

rt:quired to respond to a wildlife disease emergency can easily exceed the resources 

available to state agencies and other entities, funding mechanisms to support response 

efforts by critical partners is often key to success. 

10. The Fish and Wildlife Service recently released draft Land-Based Wind Energy 

Guidelines which differ in many significant respects from the guidelines that the 

Department's Wind Turbine Guidelines Federal Advisory Committee spent more than 2 

years to develop. The F AC guidelines were science-based and supported by the F AC 

members - including representatives of wildlife conservation groups and the wind 

industry after years of careful negotiation. 

Why did the FWS overrule the F AC' s guidelines? 

Response: The Service did not overrule the FAC's recommendations to the Secretary. 

As is the practice with Federal Advisory Committees, the federal agency carefully 

considers the recommendations made by the Committee and applies the appropriate 

elements to their policies. This was thc casc for the wind F AC recommendations. The 

Service used the recommendations as the foundation for its draft Guidelines. 

11. One of the major changes made to the FAC guidelines concerns pre- and postconstruction wildlife surveys. Rather than being linked to actual risk, as the F AC 

proposed, the FWS would require three years of pre-construction monitoring and at least 

two years of post-construction monitoring, regardless of demonstrated risk. Doesn't this 

one-size-fits-all requirement threaten to at least delay and possibly cancel many planned 

wind projects? 

Response: The 3-year pre-construction survey recommendation is not a "one-size-fitsall" requiremcnt and docs not thrcatcn to delay or cancel well-planned wind projects. 

The 3-year recommendation is a starting point for situations where there is little 

information about species and considerable potential for risk. The study duration is based 

on potential risk, just as in the F AC recommendations. Service staff should consider the 

information available and provide a study duration based on the potential risk. The 

recommended study duration for pre-construction surveys may be less than 3-years, 

depending upon the site and data availability. 
49 

12. Has the FWS done any estimate of the effects of this guidance on investment and jobs? Is 

it your understanding that this guidance would substantially delay many wind projects 

and result in loss of jobs and investment in the wind industry across many states? 

Response: The Service has not conducted any estimate of impacts to investment and jobs 

and does not have the capacity to do so. The draft guidelines are voluntary. It is at the 

discretion of the developer to use the guidelines when planning a wind project. Since 

they are voluntary, we do not believe they will result in loss of jobs or investments. 

13. Given recent controversy surrounding managcmcnt authorities of the states on federally 

managed lands, do you support the authority and responsibility of the states to manage 

fish and wildlife on federal lands, including refuges? What is your vision for 

communication and cooperation with state governments? 

Response: I learned about fish and wildlife conservation from my father, and he has 

always been a professional model for me. Among his best allies, and closest friends, 

were state fish and wildlife agency partners. I share the view that the states are the 

Service's closest and most vital partners in the management and conservation offish and 

wildlife, and if confirmed I hope to build an even stronger relationship with state fish and 

wildlife agencies. However, it is important to acknowledge that the states do not have the 

principle authOl;ty and responsibility for management of wildlife on National Wildlife 

Refuge System lands. That is a Service authority and responsibility. States have 

overlapping responsibilities and authorities for fish and wildlife management, and 

therefore, our management of national wildlife refuges requires a commitment to 

cooperate with the States. I believe the Service has an excellent tradition of working with 

the States, and if confirmed, I will ensure that this commitment is maintained and 

expanded. 

14. Will you provide support to the states to conduct management activities on 

congressionally-designated Wilderness using generally prohibited methods of access 

(prohibited to the public)7 (This includes access using helicopters). 

Response: The Service works cooperatively with the states to manage wildlife in 

wilderness areas, such as bighorn sheep at Kofa Nalional Wildlife Refuge and Sonoran 

pronghorns at Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge. For any proposed activity, the 

Service conducts a minimum requirements analysis. In this analysis, the Service first 

determines if the proposed action or activity is necessary to manage the area as 

wilderness and/or required to meet other legally mandated refuge purposes. If yes, the 

agency then determines the minimum tool or activity required to accomplish the task (e.g. 

provide subsistence opportunity, maintain biological diversity, or protect species). If the 

minimum tool or activity includes a generally prohibited access method, it is authorized 

for Service use or use by state officials through express authorization or a permit. 

15. The Refuge Improvement Act states "that nothing ... shall be construed as affecting the 

authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility of the several States to manage, control, or 
50 

regulate fish and resident wildlife under State law or regulations in any areas within the 

System." 

a. What does this mean to you? 

Response: The Service has long acknowledged the unique expertise and primary 

role of state agencies in the management offish and wildlife. While the Service 

has primary responsibility and authority for management of national wildlife 

refuges, it has always recognized that state fish and wildlife agencies have 

overlapping authorities and responsibilities that require commitment to 

cooperation. I think this passage in the law is intended to recognize this careful 

balance and the cooperative approach it requires, and the desire of the Congress 

that this longstanding relationship not be upset in the passage of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. I think both the Service and the States 

have an excellent tradition for such cooperation. 

b. How does this "savings clause" relate to the dire conservation need on Unimak 

Island and the state of Alaska's desire to intervene and prevent the extirpation of 

caribou and to provide for subsistence and other uses? 

Response: The cited provision has no specific bearing on the situation at 

Unimak. The State of Alaska proposed to conduct wolf control on Unimak 

starting in 20 II to address the declining caribou population on the island, which is 

used for subsistence purposes. The Service must approve any such action since it 

would occur on a wilderness unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

16. Will you continue the policy of reviewing refuge administered lands in Alaska for 

inclusion in the National Wilderness system? 

Response: If confirmed as Director, I will continue this policy. Our public lands in 

Alaska are unique in their expansiveness and undeveloped nature. Congress recognized 

this uniqueness when they expanded the Refuge System under Alaska National Interest 

Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) and designated over 18 million acres of refuge lands 

as Wilderness. Congress also recognized some unique aspects of Alaska wilderness by 

making special provisions for continued subsistence uses and allowing access by 

airplanes, motorboats, and snowmobiles in Alaska wilderness areas. ANILCA also 

directed us to conduct wilderness reviews of park and refuge lands within five years of 

the Act's passage. For refuges, those reviews were done as part of the initial 

Comprehensive Conservation Plans for each Alaska refuge. In 2008, the Service 

published a revised Wilderness Stewardship policy after a lengthy public process, which 

explicitly allows, but does not require, additional wilderness reviews for Alaska refuges. 

17. " ... the Service recovery priority number for the spotted owl is 12C, which reflects a 

moderate degree of threat, a low potential for recovery ... A moderate degree of threat 

equates to a continual population decline and threat to its habitat, although extinction is 

not imminent. While the Service is optimistic regarding the potential for recovery, there 
51 

is uncertainty regarding our ability to alleviate the barred owl impacts to spotted owls and 

the techniques are still experimental, which matches our guidelines- low recovery 

potential definition" draft Recovery Plan at 22. 

a. Do you believe that the spotted owl population can be recovered (delisted) 

throughout its range without a significant decrease in the barred owl population? 

Response: It is unlikely that delisting of the spotted owl could occur in the 

foreseeable future without a dccrcase in thc barred owl population. I believe we 

have a good chance of succeeding in recovery over the long term if we can 

adequately address that challenge in the short term. 

b. Ifnot, what do you think is the likelihood of receiving the social, political and 

financial support needed to carry out an sustained, three-state barred owl control 

program? 

Response: The forthcoming Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process will 

hclp the Scrvice answer this question. I look forward to public feedback the 

Service will receive from this process. I believe the Service can gain the social, 

political, and financial support to begin the process through a focused experiment 

on the removal of barred owls to determine the effect on spotted owl populations. 

The Service's ongoing work with stakeholders demonstrates substantial support 

for the barred owl removal experiment. Information from this experiment would 

allow us to make decisions on the feasibility and practicality of a larger, sustained 

control effort and help the Service to design efficient and effective barred owl 

management strategies. However, final decisions on whether to proceed with this 

proposed experiment have yet to be made and will be informed by this £IS cffort. 

c. If the spotted owl cannot be recovered without the large scale control of the 

barred owl and there is a low probability of carrying out such a program, why 

should the public support the increased restrictions on federal, state and private 

land management proposed in the draft Revised Recovery Plan? These 

restrictiDns could have a significant negative impact on the local communities 

while providing ~o actual benefit to owls. 

Response: As with all recovery plans, the revised spotted owl recovery plan does 

not regulate land management activities. Thc plan recommends protcctions for 

the highest quality habitat and spotted owl site~ while the Service determines the 

best options for barred owl management. According to wildlife scientists, 

protecting habitat would allow spotted owls more opportunity to survive and 

respond to any future barred owl management. I believe there is a reasonable 

chance broader barred owl management strategies may be feasible in the future. 

d. In 2009, the Service started working on an EIS to support experimental removal 

of barred owls. 
52 

i. When are the Draft and Final EIS's expected to be completed? 

Response: The Service anticipates completing the draft EIS this year, and 

following with a final EIS and Record of Decision in 2012. 

ii. When would the experiments start? 

Response: Based on the above schedule, the experiment could begin in 

late 2012 or early 2013. 

iii. How much do you expect this effort will cost? 

Response: The Service is analyzing this as part of the draft EIS. The cost 

depends on the final study design. The Service does not have specific cost 

estimates at this time. The preliminary estimate, depending on what 

alternative is ultimately selected, range from no cost to one million dollars 

per year for three to ten years. 

iv. How many years will it take before you can collect enough data to 

formulate solid conclusions? 

Response: This depends on the type and size of study developed. In most 

cases, significant results can be expected in three to five years, with 

preliminary results earlier. 

18. Recovery Action 32 calls for the maintenance of" ... all of the older and more structurally 

complex multilayered conifer forests on Federal and non-Federal lands across the range 

of the spotted owl. .. " 

a. Has the Service done any modeling work to show the population trends with and 

without this restriction? 

Response: Because Recovery Action 32 stands are not mapped until project 

planning, they cannot be incorporated into the Service's habitat modeling process. 

However, the Service has developed models that include retention of higherquality habitat on non-reserved lands, and they show better spotted owl 

population performance compared to models based solely on reserves. The 

benefit of retaining high-quality habitat under Recovery Action 32 was identified 

by spotted owl researchers in the recovery planning process and is supported by 

published scientific literature. 

b. Does the Service have any estimate about the amount of land this may impact and 

what the resulting decrease in sustainable harvest levels will occur as a result of 

them? 
53 

Response: Because the Recovery Action 32 stands are not mapped until project 

planning, the Service has not made any estimates of the amount of land they 

affect. The Bureau of Land Management, however, attempted to ddine Recovery 

Action 32 stands and used thisidefinition to query their inventory and estimate the 

amount of land and timber volume affected. Again, because the Recovery Action 

32 stands are identified in the field by interagency teams, they have not been 

mapped by the Service. 

c. If barred owls are present on these lands thus making them "unsuitable" for 

spotted owls, how is protecting this habitat decreasing the time it will take to 

recover the spotted owl? 

Response: Recovery Action 32 was designed to provide habitat patches that serve 

as refugia for spotted owls that have been displaced from their original habitats. 

It is intended to serve as a shott-term solution while the Service addresses the 

pressing threat posed by barred owls. 

19. I understand that the Service is working on a new habitat modeling approach that defines 

"potential, high quality habitat." 

a. How will these areas be handled, irthese areas lie outside of the areas already 

restricted by one of the requirements of the Recovery Plan? 

Response: Recovery plans are non-regulatory and do not impose restrictions on 

management activities. The revised recovery plan's habitat modeling effort was 

not used to define "potential, high-quality habitat." This is a term defined and 

U';ed in the revised plan to describe habitats that may be managed to complement 

existing, occupied spotted owl habitat. Recovery Action 10 and Recovery Action 

32 are intended to incorporate the additional habitat needed in the short-term to 

recover the spotted owl by providing much-needed population support as 

recommended in recent population analyses. 

b. Does this mean that areas outside of known spotted owl home ranges (Recovery 

Action 10) and are not currently "older and more structurally complex 

multilayered conifer forest" (Recovery Action 32) that are "potentially" high 

quality habitat will also have management restriction placed on them? 

Response: No. Recovery plans are non-regulatory and do not impose restrictions 

on management activities. The Service has been working with the Forest Service 

and Bureau of Land Management on ways to clarifY and implement the intent of 

Recovery Action 10. In addition, Recovery Action 10 specifies that local 

interagency teams will be used to identify the types and amounts of habitat to be 

retained under Recover Action 10 and to resolve implementation issues. 
54 

Senator Mike Crapo 

Environment and Public Works Committee Hearing 

February 15,2011 

Follow-up Questions for Written Submission 

I. The 2002 Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan committed the state to 

maintaining 15 pairs or 150 wolves as a substantial margin of safety over the federal 

recovery goals in Idaho. That is not to be confused with the state's management goal, as 

presented in its 2008 Wolf Population Management Plan, which exceeds 500 wolves. 

Can you commit that the Fish and Wildlife Service understands this distinction and will 

not try and force the State of Idaho to accept the management goal of 500 wolves as a 

recovery minimum in exchange for delisting? The Fish and Wildlife Service clearly 

recognized this distinction when it published the 2008 wolf deJisting rule in the Federal 

register. 

Response: The Service understands this distinction. When the Service published its 

proposed deli sting rule in 2008 and the final rule in 2009, it recognized the commitment 

of the State of Idaho to maintain at least 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves. The Service 

agreed that the 2008 management plan developed by the State of Idaho, if implemented 

as designed, would ensure that those management goals would always be met. The 

Service supports the State of Idaho's management plan and it is my hope, if confirmed, to 

delist the Northern Rocky Mountain wolf population and have the state implement that 

plan. 

2. As you know a federal judge recently asked all parties to the litigation if wolves in the 

northern Rockies can still be considered "experimental and nonessential under Section 

10J of the ESA. The parties are required to submit their answers to the judges in a week. 

I understand you cannot get in to the specifics ofiitigation, so I will ask you generally: 

Does it make sense to you as a wildlife manager that an experimental population would 

lose its status if it succeeds in becoming genetically linked to other populations? 

What would be the effect on future proposals to use the 10J provision if it were known 

that a successful reintroduction would ultimately dictate that the states cannot have the 

flexibility to manage species? 

Response: I can inform you the Federal Government filed its brief defending the rule on 

this issue with the District Court of Montana on Tuesday, February 22nd 2011. To 

summarize briefly, each lOCi) regulation is different and conforms to the biology of the 

species and situation on the ground and the needs of the entities involved relative to 

management flexibility. In this instance, the Service in 1994 designated a specific 

geographic area in which wolves would be designated a nonessential experimental 

population. The Service recognized and expected at the time that there would be 
55 

interchange with other populations of wolves over time, but the rule made a commitment 

to the states and the public that we would not change that designation until the time that 

recovery and deli sting had been achieved. I believe that rule is correct. Additionally, we 

asserted to the Court that, if the interpretation that the Court was advancing in fact came 

to bear, it would have a devastating effect on our ability to designate future 100) 

populations and also undermine recovery efforts in existing 100) populations for a host 

of species. The Service and I view Section 100) as a very valuable tool in the ESA 

toolbox to help achieve recovery of threatened and endangered species and ensure states 

and private individuals that management flexibility will be maintained. 

3. It is now clear that the wolfin the northern Rockies is biologically recovered but remains 

on the endangered species list due to the inflexibility of the ESA. What actions are the 

Fish and Wildlife Service considering in order to resolve this stalemate? 

Response: The Service agrees that the Northern Rocky Mountain wolf population is 

biologically recovered and is exploring every avenue to work toward delisting of that 

population and transition to State management. The Service is engaged in settlement 

discussions with the environmental plaintiffs that successfully sued to block our 2009 

delisting. The Service is engaged in positive discussions with Wyoming Governor Mead 

to develop a mutually acccptable statc management plan for wolves in Wyoming. The 

Service is also considering all administrative options available to it, including 

reclassification of wolves from endangered to threatened, with an associated 4(d) rule to 

provide greater management flexibility in those areas not encompassed within 

experimental population areas. The Service is processing applications from both the 

States ofTdaho and Montana for control of wolves that are having unacceptable impacts 

to elk populations. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the Congress to address 

long-term wolf recovery. The current situation is unacceptable, and is the result of many 

factors. If confirmed, resolution of this crisis will be among my highest priorities. 

4. Putting aside the issue of (he northern Rockies, what is the Service's plan for future wolf 

recovery across the United States? 

What will be the goal of wolf recovery program once the DPS' are individually delisted? 

Response: Between 1974 and 1976, the Service listed as endangered a series of gray 

wolf subspecies, including the Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf (C /. irremotus,39 

FR 1171), the eastern timber wolf (C I. Iycaan, 39 FR 1171), the Mexican wolf(C /, 

baileyi, 41 FR 17740), and the Texas gray wolf(C l. monstrabilis, 41 FR 24064). In 

1978, in order to "most conveniently" handle the gray wolf listing, the Service revised the 

listing to be endangered in the lower 48 states and Mexico, except for Minnesota where it 

was listed as threatened. 

The currently listed gray wolf entity poses complex issues for recovery planning and 

implementation. The range of the listed entity includes a complex taxonomic picture, 

occupied habitat as wcll as potentially suitable unoccupied habitat, broad areas of historic 

range no longer suitable for wolves, and areas in the southeastern U.S. that we now 

2 
56 

believe were listed in error, i.e., areas occupied historically by red wolves (C rufus). To 

date, C lupus recovery efforts have focused on three discrete regions of the country - the 

northern Rocky Mountains, and the western Great Lakes, and the Southwest. The 

Service has been conducting, in partnership with the affected State fish and wildlife 

agencies, a comprehensive structured review of its approach to gray wolf conservation 

and recovery in the contiguous United States. This review is designed to address current 

uncertainties, account for new scientific information and legal requirements, and to make 

management recommendations for the gray wolf by determining: (I) the identity and 

geographical boundaries of appropriate entities for classification under the ESA; (2) the 

conservation status ofthose entities (which might lead to reclassification, delisting, or 

listing); and (3) the recovery strategies for the listed entities. Based on this approach, the 

Service will determine how to reconfigure the current C lupus listing and most 

eITective1y achieve recovery of wolf popUlations that may remain following the delisting 

of other distinct population segments. 

### 

3 
57 

Environment and Public Works Committee Hearing 

February 15, 2011 

Follow-up Questions for Written Submission 

Senator Frank Lautenberg 

1. Wildlife refuges provide families with affordable and educational activities -- and they 

also help surrounding businesses. That's why I'm troubled with House Republicans' 

short-sighted proposed cuts to the budget of the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

a. Don't healthy and well-staffed national wildlife refuges stimulate economic 

growth and create jobs in nearby communities? 

Response: National wildlife refuges provide many benefits for local 

communities, including stimulating economic growth and creating jobs. Recent 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service economic studies indicate that refuge recreation 

programs generate over $1.7 billion and create 27,000 jobs for local communities 

each year. As an example, in 2006, the recreation programs offered by the Edwin 

B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge in New Jersey generated $4.4 million in 

revenue for the local economy, of which $2.9 million was attributed to visitors 

from outside ofthe local community. This example demonstrates the value of 

refuges as destinations associated with the sustainable tourism industry. 

2. We have five beautiful national wildlife refuges in New Jersey. If confirmed, will you 

come to visit one of our refuges during your tenure as director? 

Response: I have been to Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge, and if! am 

confirmed as Director, I will look forward to the opportunity to visit the other spectacular 

refuges in New Jersey. 

3. With global warming pushing species to migrate into new areas, it is more important than 

ever to have safe wildlife corridors for species to travel and breed. 

a. What will you do as Director to ensure our plants and animals have safe pathways 

to move with a changing climate? 

Response: Climate change is impacting and will continue to profoundly impact 

fish and wildlife resources which the Service is authorized and obligated, by 

statute, to conserve. In order to address climate change impacts on fish and 

wildlife, including potential loss of migratory corridors, the Service is facilitating 

development of a National Fish and Wildlife Climate Adaptation Strategy that 

would represent a shared blueprint to guide wildlife adaptation partnerships over 

the next 50-60 years. The Strategy is a non-regulatory partnership agreement that 

identifies how to best and most effectively address the impacts of climate change 

on our nation's fish and wildlife. In addition, the Service is working to provide 

recommendations and assess progress toward promoting habitat connectivity to 
58 

support species population objectives. As habitats alter and species' ranges shift 

as a result of climate change, habitat corridors will become even more crucial to 

species' migration and ultimate survival. If confirmed as Director, I will 

continue to develop and implement these strategies as effectively and efficiently 

as possible consistent with applicable law and regulations. 
59 

Environment and Public Works Committee Hearing 

February 15, 20ll 

Follow-up Questions for Written Submission 

Senator John Barrasso 

I. During you confirmation hearing in the Senate Environment and Public Works 

Committee when asked by Senator Inhofe whether you had a hand in putting together the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report entitled, "Rising to the Urgent Challenge: Strategic 

Plan for Responding to Accelerating Climate Change," your response was "I did playa 

leading role in the development of that strategic plan." 

I have serious concerns with a number of the statements made in the report. As someone 

who played a leading role in the development of that strategic plan, do you standby all 

the statements made in the report? If no, please list the statements that you disagree 

with? 

Response: I do not disagree with any statements in the Service's climate change 

strategic plan. As we discussed previously, I understand your concerns and am committed 

to leading the Service in a responsible manner and addressing fish and wildlife issues in 

the context of climate change based on sound science and within the mainstream of the 

broader conservation community. 

2. Do you agree with the following statement below on page 3 from the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service report entitled, "Rising to the Urgent Challenge: Strategic Plan for 

Responding to Accelerating Climate Change"? Ifnot, please explain why not? 

"As a Service, we are committed to examining everything we do, every decision we 

make, and every dollar we spend through the lens of climate change." 

Response: In the context of the Service's climate change strategic plan, I agree with the 

statement. The statement is aspirational, and not a mandatory requirement. Climate 

change is significantly affecting, and will increasingly affect fish and wildlife resources 

for which the Service is authorized and obligated, by statute, to conserve. The Service 

has an obligation to consider climate change, like other stressors on fish and wildlife and 

their habitat, in order to make responsible and fully-informed management decisions that 

make the best use of taxpayer dollars. Ultimately, however, decisions should and will be 

made based on the applicable statutory, regulatory, and policy frameworks. 

3. Do you agree with the following statement below on page 13 from the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service report entitled "Rising to the Urgent Challenge: Strategic Plan for 

Responding to Accelerating Climate Change"? If not, please explain why not? 

"Climate change is not a new mission; it is the lens through which we must accomplish 

the mission we already have." 
60 

Response: In thc contcxt ofthc Service's climate change strategic plan, I agree with the 

statement. As with the previous question, the statement is aspirational, and not a 

mandatory requirement. Climate change is significantly affecting, and will increasingly 

affect fish and wildlife resources for which the Service is authorized and obligated, by 

statute, to conserve. The Service has an obligation to consider climate change, like other 

stressors on fish and wildlife and their habitat, in order to make responsible and fullyinformed management decisions that make the best use of taxpayer dollars. The climate 

change strategic plan is intended to support the Service's mission to conserve, protect, 

and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats - not supplant it. This statement in 

the strategic plan supports that view. 

4. Do you agree with the following statement below on page 13 from the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service report entitled "Rising to the Urgent Challenge: Strategic Plan for 

Responding to Accelerating Climate Change"? If not, please explain why not? 

"Climate change is not a new mission; it is the lens through which we must accomplish 

the mission we already have." 

Response: In the context ofthe Service's climate change strategic plan, I agree with the 

statement. As with the previous question, the statement is aspirational, and not a 

mandatory requirement. Climate change is significantly affecting, and will increasingly 

affect fish and wildlife resources for which the Service is authorized and obligated, by 

statute, to conserve. The Service has an obligation to consider climate change, like other 

stressors on fish and wildlife and thcir habitat, in ordcr to make responsible and fullyinformed management decisions that make the best use of taxpayer dollars. The climate 

change strategic plan is intended to support the Service's mission to conserve, protect, 

and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats - not supplant it. This statement in 

the strategic plan supports that view. 

5. On page 11 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report entitled, "Rising to the Urgent 

Challenge: Strategic Plan for Responding to Accelerating Climate Change" it states "We 

anticipate that within the next few years, the U.S. Congress and the Federal Government 

will make political dccisions and policies relativc to climate change that will have 

enormous significance for 21 st Century conservation of fish and wildlife and their 

habitats. To help shape these decisions and policies, the Service must already have in 

place at the national and regional levels a climate change leadership and management 

capability that can provide a credible and cohesive approach to the issue." 

a. This report seems to state that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can implement 

climate change policy in the United States in the anticipation that Congress may 

one day follow suit. If confirmed, will you continue to move forward with 

installing climate change leadership and management capability in your agency 

despite Congress not having set the direction on climate change in for the 

country? 
61 

Response: As the Congress and the President deal with our nation's fiscal 

challenges, the Service has the responsibility to fulfill its mission, while facing 

increasing challenges and the prospect of diminishing resources. Critical to 

success will be the ability to set clear priorities, and essential to that will be access 

to science that will support decision-making. Not just climate change, but for the 

wide range of threats facing fish and wildlife populations, including habitat loss, 

invasive species, disease and water scarcity. Working with our partners, the 

Service is creating and enhancing technical capacity to provide cutting-edge 

science and information that will help land and wildlife managers make fish and 

wildlife conservation decisions that are responsive to changing climate. I believe 

this knowledge and capacity will assist and support Congress and the President in 

making the decisions necessary to address climate change, and will put the 

Service in position to do its part to execute those decisions, once they are made. 

b. If confirmed, will you try and predict what issues Congress may address and 

begin to implement those changes even though there is a chance that Congress 

may not go in the direction that you predicted? 

Response: If confirmed, I will ensure that the Service continues to faithfully and 

respectfully implement the law; acquire and apply the best available science; and 

that all of our actions will reflect commitment to transparcncy and accountability. 

c. If Congress does not go in lhe direction thaI you predicted, if confirmed, do you 

believe it is your role as Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to continue 

to move forward on implementing issues you deem important? 

Response: If confirmed as Director, I will have a duty to support the mission of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to faithfully implement the law, and to work 

with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their 

habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. I commit to do this to 

the best of my ability within the legal and budgetary parameters set by Congress. 

6. During your confirmation hearing, in response to my question about whether Congress 

meant environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, the 

National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Water Act to be used as climate change 

tools, you stated, "Congress did not intend them to be climate change tools and the Fish 

and Wildlife Service is not the responsible authority for the regulation of greenhouse 

gases." If this is the case, can the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service use the Endangered 

Species Act, or the National Environmental Policy Act, as climate change tools without 

specific additional Congressional authorization? 

Response: Like Secretary Salazar, Deputy Secretary David Hayes and late Director Sam 

Hamilton, I also do not believe the Endangered Species Act was intended to be used as a 

tool for regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. The ESA does not lend itself to those 

assessments. Climate change, as we understand it, is the cumulative result of a lot of 

activity over a long period of time. The ESA is designed to look at causality with respect 
62 

to particular actions and their impact on habitat or species. It is not designed to regulate 

climate change at global scales. The Service continues to find that it is not possible to 

directly link a specific greenhouse gas emission point source to direct impacts on a 

specific listed species, and thus it simply is not appropriate to use the ESA as a 

mechanism to regulate such emissions. NEP A establishes national policy promoting the 

protection ofthe environment, creating procedural requirements for all federal 

government agencies to prepare Environmental Assessments (EAs) and Environmental 

Impact Statements (EISs). EAs and EISs contain statements of the environmental effects 

of proposed federal agency actions. While the Service is required to consider the effects 

of climate change in analyzing various alternative actions (e.g., the effects of sea level 

rise in analyzing various alternatives for a visitor center at a coastal refuge), it is not a 

mechanism that the Service should or would use to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, 

since we are not the responsible authority. 

7. If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not the responsible authority for the regulation of 

greenhouse gases, then please clarify why the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report 

entitled, "Rising to the Urgent Challenge: Strategic Plan for Responding to Accelerating 

Climate Change" contains the following statement on page 4 under "The goals and 

objectives of our Strategic Plan are nested under three major strategies": 

a. "Mitigation: Reducing levels of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere." 

Response: Through the Service's Climate Change Strategic Plan, the Service has 

made a commitment to reduce its own greenhouse gas footprint by improving the 

efficiency of energy use in the facilities we manage. The reference to causative 

factors in the Strategic Plan refers to human-caused sources of greenhouse gas 

emissions. The Service has no authority to regulate sources of greenhouse gas 

emissions, but during internal agency review, our employees expressed a strong 

desire to lead by example. They also expressed the belief that this is good 

government, since it will result in better planned facilities, more efficient motor 

fleet acquisition and utilization, less employee travel, and other measures that will 

improve overall agency performance. 

For example, a number of our facilities have received awards for successfully 

increasing the efficient use of energy, including the Parker River National 

Wildlife Refuge in Massachusetts, which received a 2010 Environmental 

Leadership Award from the Service for developing environmental management 

systems using photo voltaic panels on the Refuge. 

8. On page 5 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report entitled, "Rising to the Urgent 

Challenge: Strategic Plan for Responding to Accelerating Climate Change" it states "We 

envision a new era of collaborative conservation in which members of the conservation 

community work interdependently, building knowledge, sharing expertise, and pooling 

resources as we craft explicit landscape-scale goals and pursue these goals together." 
63 

a. In a November I, 20 I 0, letter I asked the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service what was 

meant by the term "landscape goal." In response, the Service stated "Landscape -

conservation goals are scientifically-derived goals that address the habitat needs 

of a species or set of species across their entire range." 

b. On page 13 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report it states "Given the 

magnitude of the threat posed by climate change to life as we know it, we cannot 

afford to think small or be held back by our fears or concerns." 

c. It appears that the Service is stating on one hand that the agency's landscape goals 

will encompass the habitat needs of species across their entire range, and at the 

same time stating that all species are threatened by climate change. It appears 

then that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is potentially committing itself to 

developing federal landscape management goals for all species across all private, 

state, local, and federal land in the United States. Is this correct? If not, please 

clarify as to which species are not threatened by climate change and which areas 

of the United States will not come under a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

landscape management goal, if you are confirmed 

Response: No, the Service is not committing our agency to developing federal 

landscape goals that encompass all species across all lands in the United States. 

The Service is responsible for setting goals only for those species for which 

Congress has authorized through statutes such as the Endangered Species Act and 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. But, the Service is committed to working with other 

agencies, organizations, industries, and landowners to develop and pursue shared 

landscape goals that address and support the habitat needs of our trust species, of 

those species managed by state fish and wildlife agencies, as well as other natural 

resource needs of our nation. The continuing uncertainty about the nature and 

magnitude of future effects of global climate change make it impossible to 

precisely predict which species will or will not become threatened by climate 

change. A prudent response to the potential for significant adverse effects of 

climate change on species, singly or collectively, is to understand their habitat 

needs and work to build sustainability, resiliency, and connectivity of those 

habitats for the future. Then, by monitoring the effects of climate and non-climate 

changes to those habitats and the various species that depend on them, the Service 

can take appropriate actions for those species based on their relative 

vulnerabilities. This is similar, and built on the same concepts, with which we 

successfully faced continental-scale threats to waterfowl following the Dust Bowl, 

and during decades of massive and uncontrolled conversions of wetlands. 

Because the Service recognized these threats, developed strong scientific 

foundations to address them, and built enduring partnerships across government, 

non-government organizations, business sectors, and private landowners, we now 

have, a waterfowl resource that supports a vibrant and sustainable hunting 

tradition. If confirmed, I hope to help bring this same approach to addressing 

threats to fish and wildlife conservation such as climate change. I think the broad 

support that our strategic plan has received from organizations like Ducks 
64 

Unlimited, the Association for Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and the Wildlife 

Management Institute, demonstrate that we are providing responsible leadership 

on this issue from within the mainstream of the conservation community. 

9. You stated in testimony before the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, 

Wildlife and Oceans in 2008 the following: 

a. "Like the fish and wildlife populations that the Service is entrusted to conserve, 

we must adapt our work in an era of changing climate. This will require 

increasing ability to predict changes and design conservation strategies as 

landscape scales, to implement conservation projects, and to learn by adapting 

based on observed results." 

b. Can you predict with certainty what the weather, and the subsequent impact on 

the landscape, will be like in Wyoming in 5 years, 10 years, or 50 years from 

now? If so, what scientific evidence do you have to make such predictions to help 

implement conservation strategies at landscape scales? 

Response: We cannot predict with certainty what the weather, and the 

subsequent impact on the landscape, will be like in Wyoming in 5 years, 10 years, 

or 50 years from now. Nor can we predict, with certainty, how the Greater 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population will respond to environmental changes 5, or 

10, or 50 years from now; or how waterfowl populations will n:spond to changing 

precipitation patterns in the prairie potholes. However, the Service's job is to 

make decisions today, in light of our uncertainty about the future. That 

uncertainty is best addressed by using state-of-the-art science to develop 

predictive models. Those models do not make decisions for us, but they make it 

possible for us to consider and address the uncertainty that is inherent in every 

decision we make. Scientific information is continually evolving with new 

information, new questions, new studics, and new conclusions, building upon our 

existing understanding and allowing us to adapt our management as we learn. 

Uncertainty remains high, primarily with regard to specific impacts to individual 

species. Baseline infonnation for many species is not available and is a major 

constraint. However, there are scientifically peer-reviewed, mathematicallytested modding approaches to assess the impacts of climate change on fish and 

wildlife and their habitats. Improved approaches are being developed and will be 

essential to developing sound conservation strategies. 

10. During your confirmation hearing you stated that the "Endangered Species Act asks the 

Fish and Wildlife Service to make listing determinations when a species is endangered or 

threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range." You also stated that Gray 

Wolves were "extricated in its traditional range in the lower 48 states." As I pointed out 

during my questioning, the Gray Wolf s historic range covers most of the United States. 

If confinned by the U. S. Senate, will you be compelled to introduce Gray Wolves into 

their historic range? 
65 

a. More specifically, will you be compelled to introduce Gray Wolves into suitable 

habitat in the following States: 

11. ME 

12.NH 

13.VT 

14.NY 

15.MA 

16. CT 

17.PA 

18. NJ 

19. RI 

20.0H 

21. MO 

22. IA 

Response: The currently listed gray wolf (Canis lupus) recovery efforts have focused on 

three discrete regions of the country and with respect to the states you identified, the 

Service's eastern timber wolf recovery plan, as revised in 1992, would not compel any 

reintroductions. The Service does not foresee any circumstances where it would 

introduce gray wolves into the above listed states under the plan. 

23. Wyoming is committed to managing the Gray Wolfso as to assure a viable popUlation. 

Our State will maintain the recovery numbers that have been previously identified by the 

Service. With that commitment, would you recognize Wyoming's authority to manage its 

wolves under a State management plan? 

Response: The Service recently met with Wyoming Governor Mead and look forward to 

working with the State to develop a mutually agreeable plan. As the Governor noted in a 

February 22, 2011, letter to me, we share a common goal: "the desire to forge a path to a 

resolution of the wolf issue." Iff am confirmed, I have committed to the Governor, and I 

commit to you, that this will be among my highest priorities. 

24. Based on these commitments by the State, would you support congressional delisting of 

wolves in Wyoming to prevent further court challenges? 

Response: The Service remains committed to exploring every avenue to ensure 

conservation of wolves in the Northern Rockies under state management, and if 

confirmed, I would look forward to working with the Congress on long-term wolf 

recovery. 

25. In 2008 the Service delisted wolves in Wyoming, then withdrew their decision when 

challenged in court. If you move to delist wolves based on acceptance of a Wyoming 

plan, will you agree to defend that delisting decision ifit is challenged? 
66 

Response: If confirmed, I can commit to doing everything in my power to ensure that 

any rule to delist wolves throughout the Northern Rocky Mountains distinct population 

segment, including Wyoming, will be scientifically and legally sound and procedurally 

correct, so that we are in the best possible position to defend our determination 

successfully. 

26. Will you commit, if confirmed, to work directly with me to develop a solution to the wolf 

issue in Wyoming? 

Response: [f confirmed, I look forward to working with you and the othcr members of 

the delegations within the range of wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains to seek a 

resolution to this issue. I understand the importance of this not only to you personally but 

also to the citizens that you serve. If confinned, reaching resolution of this crisis will be 

among my highest priorities. 
67 

Environment and Public Works Committee Hearing 

February 15,2011 

Follow-up Questions for Written Submission 

Senator Jeff Merkley 

I. President Obama has clearly made clean energy a top priority of his administration. 

Secretary Salazar has made promoting renewable energy on public lands a top priority for 

the Department of the Interior. Wind energy will playa major role in meeting these 

goals, but the wind energy industry has estimated that guidelines released by the Fish and 

Wildlife Service last week threaten tens of thousands of megawatts- several cities' worth 

of wind energy - under development. 

a. If confirmed, how will you address this situation? 

Response: Secretary Salazar has noted that the Department of the Interior has 

coequal responsibilities for renewable energy development and conservation of 

fish and wildlife. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that Service staff work with 

renewable energy developers to provide them with timely information and advice 

so they can make well-informed business decisions, and that they design, 

construct and operate facilities that comply with laws such as the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act, and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The Service's 

recently published draft guidelines are an important step in this process. Over the 

course of many years, the Service has successfully used such voluntary guidelines 

to help the public understand and comply with species conservation laws. If 

confirmed, I will work with all partners to fashion final guidelines that reflect 

Secretary Salazar's commitment to these coequal objectives, and fulfill the 

Service's statutory responsibilities to conserve wildlife. 

b. Do you believe it is possible to fulfill the agency's mission and the President's 

priority at the same time? 

Response: Yes. It is certainly challenging, but our country has faced and 

addressed similarly challenging issues throughout its history. The Service's 

mission is to conserve fish and wildlife. I think the organization has a proud and 

exemplary record of working with the private sector. We can and do support 

renewable energy development, and if confirmed, I will work to ensure that we 

continue. 

c. How will you approach reconciling these priorities? 

Response: This will require coequal commitment from the Service and its 

industry partners. Proper siting of facilities is the essential ingredient for success. 

If confirmed, I would reconcile these priorities by building the information 
68 

needed to support effective siting. I believe this is why our investment in 

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives is so significant. 

2. I strongly believe that the best way to reconcile conflicts over natural resources is through 

collaboration and working with multiple users to come up with natural resource 

management strategies that meet multiple values. The Fish and Wildlife Service appeared 

to start with this approach when it brought together a group of wind energy stakeholders, 

environmental groups, and federal agency staff for a two-and-a half year process of 

collaboratively developing wind energy guidelines. The group achieved remarkable 

consensus with atl sides participating in thc givc and take, but cnding up with unanimous 

support. Why did the Fish and Wildlife Service decide to unilaterally make significant 

changes to those guidelines? 

Response: 

Renewable energy is a key part of keeping America competitive, creating jobs, and 

winning the future for our children. As a steward of our nation's natural resources, the 

Service has a responsibility to ensure that solar, wind and geothermal projects are built in 

the right way and in the right places so they protect our fish and wildlife resources. The 

Golden Eagle and wind turbine guidance to which you refer were put forth in draft form 

and are open to public comment for a 90 day period. The Service looks forward to 

working with the renewable energy industry and all stakcholdcrs so that the final 

guidance represents the best path forward. 

3. It has been reported that the Service made unilateral changes because regional FWS staff 

pushed for them. If you are in a collaborative process as a participant, should you make 

sure that you develop internal consensus early enough that agency positions can be take 

account by other collaborators? Or is it appropriate to finish a collaborative process and 

then make unilateral changes without consulting your stakeholders? 

Response: The Service did coordinate with the regional staff during the F AC process, 

but the Service did not seek concurrence from the regional staff: and many of their 

concerns - particularly about statutory and regulatory compliance, and internal practices 

and pcJicies - were not reflected in the final F AC recommendations. The Servicc 

participated in the process, but the recommendations were a FAC product, not a Service 

product, so some changes were necessary to meet Service policies and authorities. This 

stipulation was explicitly stated to the FAC as a condition of Service signature to the final 

F AC recommendations. 

On the draft Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted OwlI. The Fish and Wildlife Service characterizes the plan as improving the science for 

modeling spotted owl habitat and encouraging more active management for ecosystem 

restoration- thinning forest stands to compensate tor past logging practices and re-create 

better habitat over time. This should be a win-win: more jobs in the woods and a 

healthier ecosystem. Yet the BLM has told people they are worried it will further limit 
69 

how much can be harvested. The Forest Service has said there could be a 30% reduction 

in restoration thinning projects. 

a. How can your agency better communicate with stakeholders? 

Response: Throughout the process of developing the revised recovery plan for 

the northern spotted owl, the Service made extensive efforts to engage 

stakeholders along the way. The Service has not only collaborated closely with 

thc Forcst Service and the Bureau of Land Management, but also reached out to 

the timber industry, environmental organizations, state agencies, and Tribes. The 

Service has hosted more than 30 special workshops and briefings for these varied 

stakeholders and governments to share information, thoroughly evaluate options, 

and incorporate valuable input. The Service has also sought to improve the 

substance of our communications and coordination by making every effort to 

provide more explanation of the considerations made and how those have shaped 

policy positions. 

b. How can your agency better make sure other federal land managers have a 

common understanding of agency policies and thcir implications so that we don't 

have different federal agencies making conflicting claims about the same policy? 

Response: For the revised spotted owl recovery plan, the Service tried to strikc a 

balance with recommendations that provide enough clarity on the owl's recovery 

needs but still provide land managers the flexibility needed [or complex on-theground decision-making. The Service respects our federal partners' expertise in 

forest management and recognizes the challenges in reconciling their respective 

mandates and missions on some issues. 

The Service collaborated extensively with its federal partners during development 

of the revised plan given the importance of federal forest management to spotted 

owl recovery. Over the last several months, regional officials from the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management held bi-weekly 

conference calls and monthly face-to-face meetings specifically on recovery plan 

implementation activities and its revision. The Service has also had specific 

coordination meetings as needs arise, for example, as the agency has progressed 

on habitat modeling. 

The Service met with regional staff and executives of the Forest Service and 

Bureau of Land Management in early November to discuss their concerns with 

the draft revised plan, and followed up with three workshops in December and 

January to work together to resolve these issues. Agency officials have met three 

additional times since then to discuss remaining issues to be resolved prior to the 

plan's finalization. 

In addition to all of the abovc collaboration, the Service greatly appreciates the 

ongoing contributions of staff from other federal agencies who serve on the inter-
70 

organizational recoller)' phm implementation learn and olh~r spccitic work groups 

l1!ld (Cams supp¢rlJOg sponcd 0\\'1 rCl:Ollery, 
71 

Environment and Public Works Committee Hearing 

February 15,2011 

Follow-up Questions for Written Submission 

Senator David Vitter 

1. In a December 22, 20 JO memorandum explaining the legal basis tor FWS's decision to 

list polar bears as "threatened" rather than "endangered" you discussed the statutory 

definition of endangered, i.e., "in danger of extinction." Looking at the legislative 

history, you n()tcd that "in danger of extinction means that "a species is currently on the 

brink of extinction in the wild (as opposed to in captivity)." (Emphasis in original). 

Please provide the latest (2005-2010) nesting data for loggerhead turtles in the United 

States. Explain how the increasing trend in the data supports FWS uplisting proposal in 

light of your above-quoted guidance. What proportion of the total loggerhead population 

do nesting females represent? 

Response: The 2005-2010 Loggerhead Nesting Data in the United States (number of 

nests laid by State by year) does not reflect the minimal nesting that occurred in Texas 

and Virginia. Nesting also occurs at low levels in Louisiana and Mississippi; however, 

no recent surveys have been conducted in those States. 

Alabama 

2005 - 37 

2006 -45 

2007 -54 

2008-7B 

2009 ···64 

2010-41 

Florida 

2005 52,469 

2006-49,786 

2007 45,084 

2008 - 61 ,457 

2009-52,374 

2010- Data not yet available 

Georgia 

2005 -1,199 

2006-1,396 

2007 -689 

2008-1,649 

2009 998 

2010-1,760 
72 

South Carolina 

2005 - 2,434 

2006 - 2,568 

2007 -1,723 

2008 3,160 

2009-2,194 

2010-3,141 

North Carolina 

2005 -647 

2006 -794 

2007 - 532 

2008 - 832 

2009 614 

2010 - 848 

Based on the best available information, thc proportion of nesting females in the total 

loggerhead population is unknown. However, very limited data on population 

composition suggests that adult females make up a very small proportion ofthe total 

population. 

Following the publication of the proposed rule in March 2010, the Service and NMFS 

extended the public comment period for a period up to 180 days, in addition to holding 

several public meetings. The Service and NMFS are taking into consideration the best 

available information as well as all of the information provided during the public 

comment period in developing its final listing determination. 

2. If the loggerhead population is divided into nine new distinct population segments (DPS), 

each will be considered new "species" under the ESA. As such, we understand 

consultation for all activities that impact both the proposed Northwest Atlantic and North 

Pacific DPSs will have to be reinitiated. This includes beach nourishment projects, Army 

Corps of Engineer projects, management plans for National Seashores, wildlife refuges, 

and other coastal public lands under FWS jurisdiction, in addition to fishery activities 

under NMFS jurisdiction. 

Setting aside the biological merits, please discuss the practical consequences of creating 

ncw DPSs, including providing estimates of the number activities for which FWS must 

be consulted, the name of the consulting agencies and projects or federal action involved; 

and FWS's costs for developing these new biological opinions. 

Response: First, it is important to note that the law requires the Service to make listing 

determinations based solely on the best available science regarding the status of a species. 

If confirmed, it will be my responsibility, and I have given my commitment, to adhere to 

statutory responsibilities and apply the best science available. As a practical matter, 

should the best science dictate that these classifications change, the Service will need to 
73 

take a systematic and cooperative approach in reviewing Biological Opinions. The 

number of consultations and Federal agencies affected is unknown, but completed 

projects would be unaffected. In most cases, the measures to avoid and minimize impacts 

will also remain unchanged. The primary need would be to make sure the jeopardy 

analyses are up-to-date and the authorized levels of incidental take are appropriate and 

consistent with the best available science. 

Questions Regarding the Proposal to Change the Listing Status of Loggerhead Sea Turtles 

and Create Nine Distinct Population Segments: 

I. For each proposed distinct segment (DPS), please provide a total population estimate 

derived from the proportion of nesting females to the total population. 

Response: While the loggerhead sea turtle is jointly managed by both the Service and by 

the National Marin~ Fish~ri~s Service (NMFS) within the Department ofCommen:e, 

based on cooperative understanding, NMFS has primary responsibility for this rulemaking. This qu~stion, therefore, is best directed to NMFS for response as we have not 

calculated total population estimates for each DPS. 

2. If the animal survival rate, inclusive of the effects of anthropogenic mortality, of 

juveniles (after the first year) and that of adults is 0.85, and if the age of first reproduction 

is 30 years, does it flow mathematically that a population of 50,000 adult (i.e. nesting) 

females implies a total female abundance (excluding young of the year) of approximately 

3.3 million? 

Response: Current information suggests that survival rates are not accurate. We are 

currently reviewing the best available infonnation as we devclop our final listing 

determination. 

3. An expert serving on a NMFS scientific sea turtle committee had evaluated nesting beach 

data for the North Pacific loggerhead population through the fall of2010 and expressly 

concluded that (i) "nesting beach abundance data for the North Pacific loggerhead 

population exhibits a long-term increasing trend" and (ii) "the North Pacific population of 

loggerhead sea turtles is neither small, nor is it declining." Does NMFS dispute these 

conclusions? If so, please identify the specific data or information that contradicts these 

conclusions. 

4. 

Response: While the loggerhead ~ea turtle is jointly managed by both the Service and by 

the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) within the Department of Commerce, 

based on cooperative understanding, NMFS has primary responsibility for this rulemaking. This question, therefore, is best directed to KMFS for response. 

a. Has NMFS conducted, sponsored, commissioned, or otherwise supported any inwater abundance surveys regarding the Northwest Atlantic loggerhead turtle 

population? For each study identified in the preceding sentence, please provide 
74 

(a) a detailed description of the methodology used to conduct the study, (b) the 

date(s) of the study, (c) whether the study was peer reviewed, (d) the results of the 

study, and (e) whether the study was used by the BRT and, if not, why not. 

Response: While the loggerhead sea turtle is jointly managed by both the Service 

and by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) within the Department of 

Commerce, based on cooperative understanding, NMFS has primary 

responsibility for this rule-making. This question, therefore, is best directed to 

NMFS for response. 

b. Does NMFS plan to conduct, sponsor, commission, or otherwise suppprt any 

additional in-water surveys of loggerhead turtle abundance in the proposed 

Northwest Atlantic DPS? If so, please (a) describe the date on which the study or 

studies will be completed, and (b) the methodology that will be, or is expected 10 

be, used. 

Response: While the loggerhead sea turtle is jointly managed by both the Service 

and by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) within the Department of 

Commerce, based on cooperative understanding, NMFS has primary 

responsibility for this rule-making. This question, therefore, is best directed to 

NMFS for response. 

c. Is NMFS aware of any other in-water abundance survey of loggerhead turtles in 

the proposed Northwest Atlantic DPS done by another federal agency or a nonfederal entity or person? If so, for each survey, please provide the informatiun 

requested in (a) (e) of Question 4A above. 

Response: While the loggerhead sea turtle is jointly managed by both the Service 

and by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) within the Department of 

Commerce, based on cooperative understanding, NMFS has primary 

responsibility for preparing this rule-making. This question, therefore, is best 

directed to NMFS for response. 

d. Is NMFS aware of any in-water abundance survey for loggerhead turtles done by 

any person or entity with respect to any other proposed DPS? Ifso, please 

provide the infurmation requested in (a) - (e) of Questiun 4A above. 

Response: While the loggerhead sea turtle is jointly managed by both the Service 

and by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) within the Department of 

Commerce, based on cooperative understanding, NMFS has primary 

responsibility for this preparing this rule-making. This question, therefore, is best 

directed to NMFS for response. 

5. Please provide the number of nests by state and "recovery unit" for each year 2000-2010. 

Please indicate if the current year's data is preliminary and the source of the data. 
75 

Response: Please see below for the number of nests for years 2000-2010 (number of 

nests laid by State by year). Please note that this data does not reflect the minimal 

nesting that occurred in Texas and Virginia, and that nesting also occurs at low levels in 

Louisiana and Mississippi; however, no recent surveys have been conducted in those 

States. Nesting data by recovery unit has not been compiled. 

Alabama (sources: Alabama Share the Beach and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 

2000 - Statewide surveys not in place until 2001 

2001 - 67 

2002 - 59 

2003 - 62 

2004 - 53 

2005 - 37 

2006 45 

2007 - 54 

2008 - 78 

2009 -64 

2010-41 

Florida (source: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission) 

2000 - 84,387 

2001 - 69,657 

2002 - 62,905 

2003 - 63,446 

2004 - 47,173 

2005 - 52,469 

2006 - 49,786 

2007 - 45,084 

2008 61,457 

2009 52,374 

2010 - data not yet available 

Georgia (source: Georgia Department of Natural Resources) 

2000 -1,073 

2001 - 851 

2002 - 1,034 

2003 - 1,504 

2004 - 367 

2005 1,200 

2006 - 1,396 

2007 - 689 

2008 - 1,649 

2009 - 998 

2010-1,760 

South Carolina (source: South Carolina Department of Natural Resources) 
76 

2000 - 3,387 

2001 - 2,808 

2002 - 2,660 

2003 - 3,728 

2004 - 1,093 

2005 2,434 

2006 2,568 

2007 1,723 

2008 - 3,160 

2009 - 2,194 

2010-3,141 

North Carolina (source: North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission) 

2000 -754 

2001 - 655 

2002- 693 

2003 862 

2004 - 333 

2005 - 645 

2006 -763 

2007 - 535 

2008 - 890 

2009-614 

2010 - 848 

6. It has only been over the past three decades that measures, such as turtle excluder devices 

in shrimp trawls and circle hooks for longline vessels, have been mandated to reduce the 

impact of commercial fisheries on sea turtles. Only over the past ten to fifteen years have 

such measures been in widespread use, and significant improvements been made. At the 

same time, particularly since the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 and the 

Reauthorization Act of2006, fishing effort has been reduced to meet the law's 

conservation objectives. The 2009 Status Review and Loggerhead Sea Turtle Recovery 

Plan both explain the risks caused by fishing activities at great length, but do not 

characterize the trend in threats to loggerhead turtles over lime. 

a. Given that females do not mature until about 31 years of age, how long does 

NMFS estimate it will take for the reduction in loggerhead mortality and 

increased chances of survival resulting from these measures to be reflected in 

beach nest indices? 

Response: NMFS has primary management authority over the loggerhead sea 

turtle in the marine environment and has specific knowledge relative to this issue. 

This question, therefore, is best directed to NMFS for response. 

b. To quantify the trends in risks, please provide the following information for each 

of the years 1980 to 2010 (or the earliest year available): 
77 

[. The number of active shrimp vessels operating in the South Atlantic and 

Gulf of Mexico regions each year and number of annual trips. 

ii. The number of active pelagic longline vessels for species now under the 

highly migratory plan each year and the number of hooks fished annually. 

iii. The annual total days-at-sea fished (Le., both open and access area days) 

by active dredge vessels in the Atlantic sea scallop fishery. 

iv. The annual number of active South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico snappergrouper vessels. 

v. The number of gillnets employed in Federal and State waters annually in 

the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. 

Also, please provide the following infonnation: 

VI. The date that the turtle excluder devices were first mandated for shrimp 

vessels, and every significant expansion or refinement in required use, 

along with an estimate of the reduction in lethal takes projected andlor 

achieved for each new requirement. 

vii. The same infonnation for the use of circle hooks in the Atlantic and 

Pacific pelagic longline fisheries, as well as any other requirement 

designed to reduce lethal takes of loggerhead sea turtles (e.g., time/area 

closures, bait, etc.) for any type of longline vessel. 

viii. The same for the required use of chain mats in the Atlantic sea scallop 

fishery. 

ix. The same for State and Federal measures for gillnet and poundnet 

fisheries. 

x. For all fisheries operating under Endangered Species Act Section 7 

biological opinions and incidental take statements, please provide the year 

and number of highest estimated lethal takes and the most current estimate 

of lethal takes. 

Response: The Service does not manage marine species and is not the 

lead for sea turtles in the marine environment or open water. I believe this 

question, therefore, is best directed to NMFS for response. 

7. NMFS and FWS propose to divide the global population of loggerhead turtles into nine 

"distinct population segments." If this proposal is adopted, each DPS will be a separate 

"species" for purposes of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 

a. In the last 10 years, how many consultations have been undertaken pursuant to 

section 7 of the Endangered Species Act regarding the impact of a proposed 

activity on loggerhead turtles? Please identify each such consultation. 

Response: Please see attached table of interagency consultations conducted by 

the Fish and Wildlife Service; this data does not include consultations conducted 

byNMFS. 
78 

b. For each such consultation, what was the time, manpower, and cost associated 

with completing the consultation? 

Response: The Service does not maintain data on the time, manpower, and cost 

associated with individual consultations. In general, fonnal consultations require 

more time to conduct in partnership with the action agency. 

c. What is the average time, manpower, and cost associated with completing a 

Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act? 

Response: The Service does not maintain data on the time, manpower, and cost 

associated with individual consultations. In general, fonnal consultations require 

more time to conduct in partnership with the action agency. 

d. If the proposal to create nine loggerhead DPSs is adopted, which of the 

consultations identified in (A) above would have to be redone? 

Response: Depending on the final listing detennination, the Services will need to 

take a systematic and cooperative approach in reviewing Biological Opinions. 

The number of consultations and Federal agencies affected is unknown, but 

completed projects would be unaffected. In most cases, the measures to avoid 

and minimize impacts will also remain unchanged. The primary need would be to 

make sure the jeopardy analyses are up-to-date and the authorized levels of 

incidental take are appropriate. 

e. If the proposal to create nine loggerhead DPSs is adopted, what additional agency 

actions now occurring or reasonably foreseeable would be subject to Section 7 

consultations under the Endangered Species Act? 

Response: Depending on the final listing determination, the Services will need to 

take a systematic and cooperative approach in reviewing Biological Opinions. In 

most cases, the measures to avoid and minimize impacts will remain unchanged. 

The primary need will be to make sure the jeopardy analyses are up-to-date and 

the authorized levels of incidental take are appropriate. 

8. Could the methodology used in the Proposed Rule also be employed to seek the 

designation of new DPSs by nesting beach, recovery unit, or other smaller unit? 

Response: The Service follows the 1996 joint policy for determining DPSs: "Policy 

Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments Under the 

Endangered Species Act" [61 FR 4722]. Thc Biological Review Team determined that it 

was inappropriate to evaluate populations at a smaller scale, i.e., nesting beach, recovery 

unit, or other smaller unit, beyond the nine DPSs that were proposed. 

9. The National Academy of Sciences analysis of the 2009 Status Review's use of scientific 

infonnation stated. "Inadequate information is available for population assessments 
79 

because the data have not been collected, or if they have been collected, they have not 

been analyzed or made accessible in a manner that allows them to be useful." Given this 

conclusion, provide a list of data thai have been collected and not analyzed. 

Response: The National Academy of Sciences study focused on evaluating the state of 

the science and research in terms of population assessment capabilities and data required 

to improve assessments. The study also evaluated the utility of existing research 

programs that provide information for assessing and managing sea turtle populations in 

the context of current recovery plans. See http://dels.nas.eduJresources/staticassets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-bricf/Sea-Turtlcs-Report-Brief-Final,pdf for 

a link to the summary of the report. 

I recognize the conclusions of the study and the uncertainty around the data. The 

Service's position was clearly articulated in the proposed rule and will be in the final 

listing determination. All pertinent information to this listing determination were and are 

being analyzed and will be available as part of the administrative record. 

10. The Services also did not use 2008 nesting data for the proposed North Pacific DPS. Is 

the data from 2008 through the present available? If so, please provide it. 

Response: Yes, the data from 2008 to present is available and will be considered in the 

final listing determination. The Service only maintains loggerhead nesting data in the 

U.S. Nesting data in the North Pacific DPS is maintained by NMFS. 

II. For the Indian Ocean basin, 2000 was the last year of data used to assess the status of 

loggerhead populations. Is the data from 200 I through the present available? If so, 

please provide it. 

Response: Tn the North Indian Ocean, reliable trends in nesting cannot be determined 

due to the lack of standardized surveys at Masirah Island, where the majority of nesting 

occurs, prior to 2008. In 2008, about 50,000 nests were estimated based on daily surveys 

of the highest density nesting beaches and weekly surveys on all remaining island nesting 

beaches. Raw nesting data for 2009 and 2010 have not had robust analyses yet, but the 

preliminary estimates are 67,600 nests in 2009 and 62,400 in 2010. 

12. To estimate anthropogenic mortality in the Services' model, panels of experts selected by 

the Services were asked to rate each source of mortality as high, medium, low, or very 

low. Each category was then assigned a mortality rate that was used in the model. Please 

list (a) experts consulted with respect to each DPS; (b) each experts' area of expertise; (c) 

provide copies of the standards the experts were provided to ensure uniformity in 

mortality rates assigned to each threat level (high, medium, low, or very low); and (d) 

provide copies of the guidelines or guidance provided for translating qualitative estimates 

of threats into quantitative rates, including the methodology used. 

Response: Thc experts were members of the Loggerhead Biological Review Team 

(BRT) assembled by NMFS. The BRT was composed of sea turtle biologists from 

NMfS, fWS, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and the North 
80 

Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Because NMFS convened the panel, I believe 

your request for more information about the experts consulted and the guidance provided 

to the team, therefort:, is best directed to NMFS for response. 

13. The number of anthropogenic mortalities developed by assigning actual mortality 

numbers to the high, medium, low, or very low threat is between 8 and 31 times higher 

than the number of actual mortalities detailed in the BRT Report. For the proposed 

westcrn North Atlantic DPS, please provide a comparison of the anthropogenic mortality 

rates resulting from the threats matrix analysis with estimated rates derived from other 

empirical sources referenced in the report. Where possible, please show total mortality 

rates and the rates by particular threat. 

Response: The values listed in the threats matrix analysis were based upon the empirical 

sources referenced in the report. Justifications and references for each threat were 

provided in threats matrix spreadsheets. 

Additional Questions: 

I. Have you ever provided any internal agency documcnts to an environmental NGO that 

was utilized in adverse legal actions against the Department ofInterior? 

Response: To the best of my knowledge, I have never provided any pre-decisional, 

deliberative agency documents to any NGO or any other party. I have no knowledge that 

any document provided by me, directly or indirectly, has been utilized in adverse legal 

actions against the Department of the Interior. 

a. It is my understanding that the Equal Access to Justice Act and the Judgment 

Fund are utilized as a piggy bank for environmental lawsuits. Can you explain 

the process whereby an environmental NGO, such as NRDC, sues the federal 

government and is then reimbursed by the federal taxpayer through this process? 

Response: By law any private citizen, business interest, advocacy group 

(representing environmental, commercial, or other interests). or other entities, 

who successfully challenge decisions, regulations, or other actions taken by the 

Fish and Wildlife Service may be entitled, in certain instances, to an award of 

attorneys' fees and litigation costs. 

Specifically, if a lawsuit against the Service is brought under Section 11 of the 

Endangered Species Act, the court may award attorneys' fees and costs at the 

conclusion of a case, payable from the Claims and Judgments Fund, "whenever 

the court determines such award is appropriate." When the statute authorizing the 

particular lawsuit to be brought does not contain a provision specifically 

authorizing attorney fee awards, such as suits based on an agency's violation of 

the Administrative Procedure Act, the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) 

provides that fees paid be from agency funds. If the party meets the eligibility 

criteria ofEAJA (e.g., an individual or business entity with a net worth below 
81 

statutory thresholds) and is a "prevailing party" in that action (other than a tort 

claim), then the court "shall" award attorneys' fees and costs to that party "unless 

the coun find~ that the position of the United States was substantially justified or 

that special circumstances make an award unjust." 

b. You may be aware the NRDC, whose Executive Director was also on the 

President's Oil Spill Commission, has announced NRDC's intention to file 

lawsuits against the Department ifInterior issues permits to drill. NRDC received 

court awarded fees from the federal taxpayer, through the Judgment Fund, in the 

amount of$3,491,533.00 in 2008 alone. So we are essentially paying the 

environmental community with taxpayer money to file lawsuits to put the 

American taxpayer out of work. 

I. How does Interior Department account for the lost jobs from 

environmental lawsuits? 

Response: The Department of the Interior supports efforts to create jobs 

across all sectors ofthc U.S. economy. This is consistent with its 

commitment to issue permits in accordance with all applicable laws. 

When judges uphold issuance of permits, the courts do not award fees to 

litigants 

') Have you ever negotiated settlement agreements against the 

Department that resulted in legal fee reimbursement to any environmental 

NGO? If so, can you please elaborate on the issue and all lawsuits which 

you were involved? 

Response: I have not negotiated settlement agreements against the 

Department of the Interior. 

3. Do you have any estimates on what the average legal fees are 

environmental groups charge themselves which are then reimbursed by the 

American taxpayer. 

Response: I am not aware of any such estimates, 

2. Discuss your involvement in the FWS designation of polar bears under the Endangered 

Species Act based on the theory of global warming? 

Response: During the time that the Service was developing its listing determination for 

the polar bear, I was the Science Advisor to the Director. In my role as Science Advisor, 

I stayed informed of how science regarding climate change was being considered in 

developing the listing determination. I worked with the USGS, NOAA and NASA to 

help get access to the best science available. The fmal decision for the listing 

determination was made by the Secretary of the Interior, and I was not directly involved. 
82 

a. Assuming sea ice is the critical habitat for protecting polar bears, what is the 

strategy for increasing sea ice and what is the cost of doing so? 

Response: Climate change and the resulting effects, such as the loss of sea ice 

habitat is a global issue that must be addressed at the intemationallevel. The 

Service has been and continues to work with the range countries for the polar bcar 

in developing a conservation strategy for the species, but no specific plans for 

increasing sea ice are being discussed. Any recovery plan for the species will be 

subject to public review and comment. 

b. Given that most polar bear populations in the U.S. and Canada are stable or 

increasing can you explain to me your analysis for increased protections? Is it 

accurate to state that polar bears have survived for thousands of years including in 

both colder and warmer periods? 

Response: The Service agrees that polar bears presently occupy their available 

range and that a few polar bear populations are stable or increasing. Of the 19 

populations, two polar bear populations are increasing (M'Clintock Channel and 

Gulf of Boothia) and three are stable (Davis Straight, Northern Beaufort, and 

Southern Hudson Bay); the others are declining (Baffin Bay, Kane Basin, 

Lancaster Sound, Norwegian Bay, Southern Beaufort, and Western Hudson Bay) 

while the status of the remaining eight populations is unknown due to inadequate 

data. 

While polar bears have survived during previous warming periods, the primary 

concern is the current and projected rate of change and loss of habitat. The 

Service anticipates continued declines in some polar bear populations, and future 

declines in additional populations, as a result of the ongoing and projected future 

loss of sea ice habitat throughout the range of polar bears as a whole. I 

Secretary Kempthorne determined that listing the polar bear as a threatened 

species under the Act is appropriate, based on his evaluation of the actual and 

projected effects of the five listing factors on the species and its habitat. He 

detern1ined that while polar bears are currently distributed throughout their range, 

the best available scientific information, relating status and trends of polar bear 

populations lo loss of sea ice habilal, idenlify significant threats faced by polar 

bears and demonstrate that, while polar bears are not currently in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range, polar bears are 

likely to become so within the 45-year "foreseeable future" established for the 

listing determination. 

c. Since the 1970' S, while much of the world was warming, polar bear numbers 

incrcascd dramatically, from roughly 5,000 to 25,000 bears - a higher polar bear 

population than had existed any time in the twentieth century. Is this statement 

accurate and can you please discuss? 
83 

Response: The current status must be placed in perspective. Many populations 

were declining prior to 1973 due to severe overharvest. In the past, polar bears 

were harvested extensively throughout their range for the economic or trophy 

value of their pelts. In response to the population declines, five Arctic nations, 

i.e., the range countries (Canada, Denmark on behalf of Greenland. Norway. 

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and thc Unitcd States), recognized the polar 

bear as a significant resource and adopted an inter-governmental approach for the 

protection and conservation of the species and its habitat, through the 1973 

Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears. With the passage of the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act, in 1972, the United States banned sport hunting of polar 

bears and limited the hunt to Alaska Natives for subsistence purposes. As a result 

of these coordinated international efforts and scientific harvest management 

leading to a reduction in harvest, polar bear numbers in some previouslydepressed populations have grown during the past 30 years. This historical 

success shows that by recognizing and addressing threats to species like the polar 

bear. we can best develop cooperative and long-range strategies to address those 

threats. 

d. Scientists believe polar bcars thri vcd in thc past in temperatures even warmer than 

the present - during the medieval warm period 1,000 years ago and during the 

Holo<?ene Climate Optimum between 5,000 and 9,000 years ago. Is this statement 

accurate and can you please discuss? 

Response: Polar bears may have experienced several periods of climatic 

warming, including a period 115,000-140,000 years ago, a period of warming 

4,000-12,000 years ago (Holocene Thermal Maximum), and most recently during 

medieval times (800 to 1200 A.D.). During these periods there is evidence 

suggesting that regional air temperatures were higher than present day and that 

sea ice and glacial ice were significantly reduced. 

Thus polar bears as a species survived at least one period of regional warming 

greater than present day. However it is important to recognize that the degree that 

they were impacted is not known and there are differences between the 

circumstances surrounding historical periods of climate change and those of the 

present day. First, the current rate of global climate change is much more rapid 

and very unusual in the context of past changes. Although large variation in 

regional climate has been documented in the past 200,000 years, there is no 

evidence that mean global temperature increased at a faster rate than present 

warming, nor is there evidence that these changes occurred at the same time 

across regions. Furthermore, projected rates of future global change are much 

greater than rates of global temperature increase during the past 50 million years 

and it is extremely likely that this rate of change will limit the ability of polar 

bears to respond and survive in large numbers. Second, polar bears today 

experience multiple stressors that were not present during historical warming 

periods. Polar bears today contend with harvest, contaminants, oil and gas 
84 

deve/opment, and additional interactions with humans that they did not 

experience in previous warming periods, whereas during the HTM, humans had 

just begun to colonize North America. Thus, both the cumulative effects of 

multiple stressors and the rapid rate of climate change today create a unique and 

unprecedented challenge for present-day polar bears in comparison to historical 

warming events. 

e. Do you believe that the threat to polar bears is the burning of fossil fuels under a 

theory of global warming/climate change? If so, is domestic energy production 

from fossil fuels a threat to polar bcars? Does domestic cnergy production in the 

Gulf of Mexico contribute to global warming and is it a threat to polar bears? 

Response: Tn its final listing mle, the Service determined that the primary threat 

to the polar bear was loss of sea ice habitat resulting from climate change. As 

widely supported and acknowledged in the scientific literature, climate change 

appears to be strongly correlated with, and the principal result of increased 

atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, in concert with multiple other 

factors. As such, every emission is contributory. However, while the Service 

must evaluate the effects of climate changes in its status determinations for 

species (Le. listing determinations. biological opinions, etc), the Service has no 

authority to regulate specific sources of greenhouse gas emissions using thc 

Endangered Species Act unless it were possible to link that specific emission 

point source to direct impacts on a specific listed species. The Service has stated, 

consistently, that current scientific lmderstanding is incapable of proving that 

level of causation and it is unlikely that such science will be available in the near 

future. If confirmed, I will continue to insist that all Endangered Species Act 

decisions reflect the best and most current scientific understanding. 

3. Last year in the 9th Circuit, U.S. District Judge Oliver Wanger said the Fish and Wildlife 

Service had ordered a protection plan under the Endangered Species Act through a 

biological opinion that was "arbitrary, capricious and unlawful." He also noted that "the 

public CarulOt afford sloppy science." 

This is not the first challenge with sloppy science we have seen over the last two years 

from a federal agency, but importantly, Judge Wanger noted that NEPA requires agencies 

look at the "human impact" of their decisions. In other words, federal agencies should 

account for the economic impact of their decisions before cutting off access to resources. 

How is the Interior Department now accounting for the "human impact" in its 

envirormJental decisions and how is it doing so as it relates to jobs and economics? 

Response: Where the law permits, the Department of the Interior considers social 

impacts as part of the required analysis such as under NEPA for proposed significant 

actions. Jobs and economic impacts are then taken into account. 
85 

In this context, and given the President's indication at least to review burdensome 

regulations on businesses, how is the President's initiative impacting Interior as it relates 

to environmental review and regulation? 

Response: The Department ofthe Interior is currently developing a preliminary 

regulatory review plan, in accordance with President Obama's Executive Order 13563 on 

"Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review." The preliminary plan will provide a 

process for reviewing existing significant regulations and identifying those regulations 

that can be made more effective or less burdensome while still achieving regulatory 

objectives. The public can access the Department's regulations at 

htto:ffwww.doi.govfopenfregsreview/ and may submit comments electronically bye-mail 

at RegsRevicw(@ios.doi.gov and through http://www.rcgulations.gov (Docket DOI-201 I0001) or by mail to: Regulatory Review, Office of the Executive Secretariat and 

Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, N.W., Mail Stop 7328, 

Washington, DC. 

4. Those of us representing coastal states have taken a great interest in this administration's 

National Ocean Policy initiative. Its massive scope raises many questions and I have a 

great deal of concern regarding whether adequate public input is being gathered and what 

the true goals of this effort are. But for you in particular, I want to know as nominee to 

be Fish and Wildlife Director what you have to say about whether this National Ocean 

Policy is going to acknowledge extremely important precedent from how we have 

managcd our public lands. Is continued public access to America's oceans going to be an 

explicit priority like it has been for our public lands? I know recreational anglers, just to 

name one group, are very concerned about areas bcing closed to fishing under this new 

policy. 

Response: I have had a life-long involvement in, and support for, outdoor recreational 

activities, and for responsible access to public lands and resources for recreational 

purposes. I believe that the support for my nomination by such groups as the American 

Sportfishing Association, National Marine Manufacturers Association, and American Fly 

Fishing Trade Association underscores that commitment. If confirmed, I will continue 

my support and will look forward to bringing that perspective to discussions about the 

National Ocean Policy initiative. 

5. How is FWS going to cooperate in getting our people back to work in Louisiana in light 

ofthe ongoing permitting challenges and what is FWS currently doing? 

Response: First, let me say that I am proud of the role that Service employees have 

played in supporting the people of Louisiana and the broader Gulf of Mexico, in their 

hours of need, after Hurricane Katrina and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Thousands of 

Service employees dropped everything in their work and personal lives, and deployed to 

the Gulf. Thousands more pitched-in to provide policy, budgetary and logistical support 

for those employees. I think the work of the Service and its employees demonstrates the 

very best of public service, and I believe this effort has provided significant assistance in 

getting Louisiana and the broader Gulf of Mexico economy back to work. Regarding 
86 

ongoing permitting, the Service's role and responsibility in this effort is to assist the 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) in 

meeting its Endangered Species Act (ESA) responsibilities as that agency makes oil and 

gas leasing and permitting decisions in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) federal agencies are required 

to consult with the Service if actions they authorize, fund, or permit may affect a listed 

threatened or endangered species to ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of those species. The Service has been working closely with 

BOEMRE, as a result of the Deepwater Horizon incident, to determine what information 

would be needed and the best approach, to complete re-initiation ofESA consultation on 

the Five-Year Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program (2007-2012) in the 

Central and Western Planning Areas of the Gulf of Mexico. While FWS has been and 

still remains actively involved in spill response and clean up actions, we have been 

proactively working with BOEMRE towards that end since the Fall of201 O. 

In September 2010, the Service responded to BOEMRE's re-initiation request and 

advised BOEMRE of the need to conduct additional modeling for a "rare event" scenario 

of an oil spill exceeding 420,000 gallons and its potential effects on federally listed 

species and their habitats. The Service also requested a meeting to discuss additional 

concerns. In December 2010, Service biologists attended a meeting between BOEMRE 

and NMFS to discuss information and consultation needs. In January 2011, we provided 

comments to BOEMRE on their supplemental EIS for the remaining 2007-2012 lease 

sales later that month, the Service met with BOEMRE to review new modeling results 

and to discuss consultation re-initiation on the 2007-2012 lease sales as well as future 

new consultations (2012-2017). As BOEMRE continues its internal discussions on how 

to proceed with the existing re-initiated consultation, we are working with it to 1) ensure 

that they have the most accurate species and critical habitat occurrence data; and 2) 

explore the possibility of conducting a programmatic approach for future consultations 

that may expedite future leasing actions. 

The Service remains committed to working with BOEMRE to complete this and future 

such consultations as expeditiously as possible and continue to assist BOEMRE in 

meeting their ESA responsibilities. 

6. How many people at Interior are currently dedicated to stimulus projects? 

Response: It is my understanding that out of a total of 3,932 Recovery Act projects the 

Department has completed 2,622 as ofJanuary 31, 2011. The remaining 1,310 are all 

well underway and the work is being performed by third party contractors in most cases. 

This work still requires appropriate oversight on the part of the Inspector General and 

bureaus. I believe relatively few individuals are currently dedicating full time to ARRArelated work at this point. This will diminish substantially in the next six months as the 

Department expects to have completed over 95% of its work during that time. 
87 

7. How many people are currently dedicated to reviewing wind, solar and renewable energy 

projects? 

Response: At the Service, there are approximately 80 people involved with the review 

of wind, solar and renewable energy projects. Of these 80 approximately 60 are 

dedicated full-time to reviewing these projects. 
88 

Senator Tom Udall 

Environment and Public Works Committee Hearing 

February 15, 2011 

Follow-up Questions for Written Submission 

I. With all the rhetoric about climate change, the Fish and Wildlife Service can and should 

be active in educating the pUblic. Where has the Fish and Wildlife Service been 

successful at this in the past, and how will you reach out to the American public to raise 

understandings of climate science? 

Response: The Service's mission requires that we understand and explain impacts on 

fish and wildlife and their habitat, including climate change. Working closely with 

partners and stakeholders, the Service has completed a strategy to engage the American 

public regarding the significance of climate change for fish and wildlife. If confirmed as 

Director, I will support the Service's ongoing development of internal and external 

communications efforts designed to ensure that we are bringing the best available science 

to all of our conservation and education efforts. 

2. Climate Change is a global issue, and I understand that the Fish and Wildlife Service has 

a strong international program. How does the Fish and Wildlife Service enact climate 

strategies globally, and how would you help to improve that effort to ensure that Fish and 

Wildlife Service's efforts are global in reach? 

Response: The Service supports climate change responses globally primarily by 

addressing international wildlife conservation issues through our multinational grant 

programs, which emphasize that grantees address this critical environmental threat to 

wildlife where possible. We are also incorporating this theme in the various training 

programs we support in Mexico and Latin America. The Service has developed a 

strategic plan to address climate change. This plan has several specific global elements, 

including training for developing countries to empower local people to address climate 

change rather than depend upon short-term technical advice from abroad. We also seek 

to learn from the experiences of other countries and share our experiences with them to 

achieve a common understanding and common ground for moving forward together. If 

confirmed, I would continue to support these efforts. 

3. What do you believe is and should be the role of the Service in international 

conservation? And what is the Service's plan to amplify U.S. leadership in international 

conservation? 

Response: The Service is recognized as a worldwide leader in wildlife management and 

conservation. Its expertise in endangered species management, enforcement, fisheries, 

refuges, and technology puts the Service in a unique position to influence and shape the 

outcome of wildlife conservation in other countries. The Service has been committed to 

continuing its leadership role of conserving living resources around the world by building 
89 

Ihe eapacity of local partners and effcelively implementing conservation loW$ and 

treaties, through collaboration, cullura! sensitivity, and principles ofscienlific integrily, 

One promifl{:nt example ora U,S. tommilment to conservation globally is the Convention 

on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and l'lora (CITES). a 

multinational agreement designed to prevent speeies exploitation, endangerment or 

complete extinction resulting fi'om intt'matiODllI trade. Under this trealy, countries work" 

together 10 regulate international Irolde in cel1l1in animal and plant spedes to ensure thai 

any trade in these species is sustainable, based on sound biological understanding and 

principles. The Service oversees the impkmmtation of the Convention, develops 

polities and regulatiuns. interprets resolutions, ~oordinales with other ag~ncies. and 

administers permits to ltelp conserve wildlife. The Service is also responsible for 

identifying and recommending species for protection through listings in the CITES 

appendices or a change in their cUrTenlliSiing SlIItus. 

Despite its long history of suctessful conservation work in the international arena. the 

Service believes thnt much more can and should be done 10 secure the c:onsefvation of tile 

world's wildlife and plal1ls for future gene alion~, To Ihis end. for thc first time in Ihe 

agency's history. it is developing an international strategic plan to guide its efforts in this 

arena. If confirmed, I hope to enCQurage this effort. 

4, II is my understanding Ihat the LCC program is based off of Ihe Joint Ventures modellhal 

has been so successfully run for waterfowl by the Fish and Wildlife Service. ' 

a. What OHtcOmcs do you wnnt to sec from LCCs? 

e!l pon5~: By bullding on c:rtisting partnerships. the l andscape Conservation 

Cooperative network sllould provide the information needed to accomplish 

conscrvalion objectives th31 no ~ingle ngency or organization can accomplish 

alone. LCCs should comprise a seamless national network with the scicntilicand 

IcdUlieal capacities to hclp conscrvution agencies and organizations maintain 

landscapes capable o[sustaining abundant, diverse and healthy populations of 

fish, wildlife and plants, I\t prescnt, no other organizutioll is fulfilling this 

function. 

b. What timeline do you expect for LCCs across the country 10 get underway? (It is 

my urKIerstanding lhal 8 are uJJderv.·ay and more than 20 are planned.) 

Relpon,t: Wilh Congressionally appropriated funds for FY 2010, nine of2 1 

LCes in Ihe l1alional network have been established, including the North Atlantic. 

SOUlh AIIQntie, Prairie Plains and Potholes. Great Northern, Great Plains. 

California, Pacific Islands. and ArCtic. We are currently on target for all LCC's \0 

be fully opc!3tional with the President's FY 2012 budget requcst. Enbrts are 

ongoin!! to initiate LCe planning prior 10 2012 10 ensure thatlhe structure IS ready 

for effeclive fUnding lllilization. 
90 

c. What does the agency need from Congress in order for the LCe effort w.succeeil7 

Ruponsl': Fundamentally, I believe tha t in order for the Lee effort to succeed, 

the Service needs Congress' support of building shared scientific and technical 

capacities among and between agencies. 

S. Does the Fish and Wildlife Service have a baseline understanding ofspeeies popUlations 

in the United States7 Would it be possible and useful to complete a scientific analysis of 

what species are out there and what level ofhe-Blth IlI1d population 5uslainability l!lI ists7 

Response: The Service does not have adequate baseline infOl1lllllion and undersumding 

of species, populatioos and habitat. The NationHI Wildlife Refuge System has initialed 

work on a national inventory and monitoring progl1lm that will provide data for a long~ 

lel1ll understanding of species, lind how populations are affected by forces such as habitat 

loss and climate change. This monitoring effort is being coordinated with the National 

Park Service's Vital Signs network, and with Ihe Landscape Conservation Cooperative 

network. This collaborati ve effort also enhances the Service's ability to collect 

information that can be used to improve or augment many of the Service's ongoing 

conservation efforts, such as End3ngered Species Recovery Plans, Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plans, fish passage and habilal rcSioration. 
91 

Environment and Public Works Committee Hearing 

February 15,2011 

Follow-up Questions for Written Submission 

Senator Jeff Sessions 

I. Sir, in your testimony you state, 'The Service makes decisions every day that are 

important to the American people. The actions we take to ensure the sustainability of our 

nations' fish and wildlife resources effect both public and private lands and impact the 

quality of life, the economic wellbeing ... " In light of that statement how important is 

stakeholder input to you when proposing expansions of National Wildlife Refuge areas to 

protect an endangered species that would require land easements, and procurements? 

And also, what will you do to further ensure that they are included in the decision making 

process? 

Response: When the Service begins planning for the expansion or establishment of any 

National Wildlife Refuge, the input oflocallandowners and stakeholders is essential. In 

addition to public involvement required under National Environmental Policy Act, it is 

the policy of the Service to make stakeholders, local landowners and the general public 

aware of a project as early as practical in the planning process. 

If confirmed as Director, I will reinforce the Service's policy to make the public aware of 

any refuge acquisition or expansion project early in the planning process, and I will 

continue to impose the highest standard of scientific diligence to all of the Service's 

conservation activities. I fully recognize that timely and effective communication with 

stakeholders and the public is critical to the success of the Service's conservation efforts. 

2. In regards to the oil spill cleanup efforts in the Gulf, you state that, "nothing less than 

success is acceptable, and continuing our all-out support for Gulf Coast Restoration will 

be among my top priorities as Director." What does "success" on the Gulf Coast look like 

t~ you, and how will the Fish and Wildlife Service be influential in reaching this goal? 

Response: The Gulf of Mexico is a national treasure and an extraordinarily diverse 

ecosystem. As a young boy, and as a college undergraduate, I spent many wonderful 

days in and around the waters of the Gulf. So for me, "success" would be a Gulf of 

Mexico ecosystem and economy that will continue to provide the same memories for 

generations to come. This would be a Gulf with abundant and healthy fish and wildlife 

supported by the rich natural habitat of the bays, estuaries, tidal flats, barrier islands, 

hardwood and pine forests, and mangrove swamps of the region. Realizing this success 

requires numerous things. The natural ecological processes of the Gulf need to be 

restored to ensure the resiliency and long-term sustainability of the diverse natural 

communities ofthe Gulf of Mexico and surrounding lands. The environment, economy, 

and health of the Gulf Coast are closely linked. As we saw clearly in the Deepwater 

Horizon oil spill, impacts to the environment have both direct and indirect impacts on the 

regional economy and public health as well. Similarly, as the environment is restored, 
92 

economic activity will increase, jobs will be created, and the region's health will 

improve. The national vision of a restored Gulf of Mexico ecosystem is still being 

developed through the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, and if confirmed, I 

will work to support that vision. 

The Administration is committed to achieving this success, and I am determined that the 

Service will do its part. As an agency of ecologists, biologists, and scientists, our focus is 

on environmental protection and restoration, appreciating the ties to the region's 

economy and public health. The Service's contribution to this effort has been and will 

continue to be substantial. Almost 2,000 FWS employees were deployed to the Gulf in 

response to the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. A substantial investment in the Natural 

Resources Damage Assessment and Restoration effort for this spill is being made that 

includes establishing a new office to manage Service Deepwater Horizon NRDAR 

activities. The Service's Southeast Regional Director is serving as the Department of the 

Interior's lead on this NRDAR case, and significant staffing support is being provided for 

the Task Force. In addition, we expect that the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives 

being established now in the Gulf watershed will contribute significantly to the science of 

restoration in the Gulf, and our other activities further contribute to restoration. For 

example, we manage more than 30 units of the National Wildlife Refuge System in the 

Gulf Coast. 
93 

us FIS~an<lWil<lltfeSeMte 

11ll1""'Q~n.:y CoM~IIIII<CIn$ 1It'<01""'1I LOQge.mead SlOB Turtles 

A~ of FebJuary 23, 101 j 

Page 1 af~9 
94 

us F,snandW,I(MeScrv,ee Asorfen",ary2::l2Q1! 

In!",agency Con~u'taMn~ lnvolv,ng coggeme~d Sea Tur\'~S Pa~e Z uJ 39 
95 

US Frsharid WoldhlaS$Mc;<l 

Intll .... gllncyCOn5Yllal"'MII\\I01\'1n\llQ~gem8ilds..aT""1e3 

ASoIFlltlN'ry2J,2Gl1 

Pag.e3 ofJ9 
96 

us ~'$"andW'kll<laSe"'t<;e 

Interagency Consulta\tOM 'nv~v'~~ Logge,hea~ Sea Turtles 

Asolfebruary23Z01\ 

Page 4 oT:1S 
97 

u.s FI~h8r>dWlkHfl$SelVlC8 

Intentg.en~ConsYMbonSmvOlv'n\llo\lgert...edSG8Turlfes 

AlloIFelll1Jary2J.2011 

Page50flll 
98 

US Ff>~an<lVWO"feSeNfCe 

lot~'ag~ncy CD~,ullgt,on;; '~vOlv'ng L099NMad Sea TurHas 

MofFebruary232(il1 

Paget'io'39 
99 

U.S FisllandWlldlittlSalV1<:e 

InlllnlIlMcyC""'~1l8bOIl$,n\'OI""'IIL"\lgerT'lUdSuaT~rt"'s 

AsofFebnlary23.2011 

Pagu7¢f39 
100 

V$ F"h~MW,I~IMServ'~e 

Inter3ge"cyCCMuliahons'n"olv,ogLoqg"m~a<lSea"'''r[le. 

A'OfFet>'U3",231Dll 

P.ge8cf39 
101 

USF .. h&ndWiIdI,feSefVJCII 

lnletDgen.:yc.;.nwl"'t"'n$'nvol .... ,\lLo\lgerhl&8dSe~T ... o1le' 

A. of FebN"'Y 23, 2011 

PageScl39 
102 

us F'$naMW,]dIMServ,ee 

In!eragency ConS"itaMnsonvoivmg Log!,lerhU1$ea Turtie5 

AsnfFebru alj'23,2011 

Page10nf39 
103 

US Fish 8odw)kll~8Se"",c8 

Ir1I811Jge!>C)lCQ~s\lUatlOn$lnvolv"9lQ9g&rheadSaa Tumes 

AsofF&bnJary23,2011 

Page 11 Qf311 
104 

us F'Sl>andW,I<:Ihl.S~rv)ee 

inl'H~g~ncyConsuttanMS'nvol'lnglogge,h.a<lSeaTur!les 

AsoIFel.>"''''Y232011 

Page12of39 
105 

us F'SIllN1aW,JdhfaSeMCil 

IrI\emll"'ney ConSIIfI&lions invoMng L9ggertoUa Su T~rtle$ 

A$ Of Fe!)Nlry23, 20'1 

P,ge139139 
106 

0S F,s~andWfldMe5e""ce 

'nte'agen~y Con.uitat,on$ '~")I"ng logge'he~~ S~a Turt:e, 

""o!FetJ.rJsry23,2011 

Page 1~ <>1 ~9 
107 

U.S.r!thandW,ldbleSelVla! 

Interagency ConS~k9tlOn5 "wQllo'l~\I LoglI"maad Sea Turtle$ 

A,ofFetlNal'f2l,2011 

PII';I&15 cr39 
108 

US f"handW,ldhfeSe""ce 

In'Nag"ncyConsulta!JOns"wolY>rgLo~gerhe3dSeaiunl.s 

Asoffe!)ruary232011 

Page 18 of3~ 
109 

U,S F,shandWFldhfeS&N'C(! 

inl<mlg""C'fConoolllltIQMS ,nvo!'lng LoggerhfladSu Turl"'$ 

AaofFebNlry23,2011 

Pall"Hol39 
110 

us F,sh.ndW'idl,f~5ervlce 

Inl.rage~cy Con.wltanon. m"""ng Logg.'head Sea Tu"I~. 

A,ofFeb"'"'Y132011 

P~g~ 18 of 3\1 
111 

u.s Fish an(l Wildl,1$ ServJC8 

Int$l'IIgencyCcnt<illilhOllij'nvolMIILolI~erheadSuTuf\l8S 

A; 01 February 23,2011 

Pi\j'el\)of39 
112 

us F"~andW'I<lI,!&Se",,c& 

1~lerage~cy C005uH~IK,ns 'MV<)lV1ng Logg.,meadSea TwrHe. 

A~ ~i rebn,lalY 23 2011 

Page20o!39 
113 

US F,slland.WoldllfeServo:a 

11'IIerall'nC)lCo!l1iullaloa!lsInYOll'lnIlLog~rheadSeaT"rtle.s 

AsafFebruary23,2011 

Palle21afJ.Q 
114 

us Ft$haMW,ldMeSef\!'C~ Aso(Fetl",ary23:lQt! 

Inlernge~cy CO".utl~("mS '~YO'vlng. Loggcmead Sea Turtles Page 2Z 0'39 
115 

US F .. /I .nO WtId~fe Sef\1>C8 

jn!8rt10eI>C\'Con101l~11C!l$,'w"!vlngLogQerheaoSear"!1les 

AsoIFe~a!Yn.2011 

Page 23 or39 
116 

us F"handW"'1lifeSelVlce 

:"le'a9~ncy CO"$~llaltnpo ",voi"'''9 L099s,~e,,<'l Sea Tlj~le5 

Asofl'ebruary232011 

F'age2

4 o!39 
117 

US F,shllndl',';ldh!eSeMce 

Inlel1tgencyCo.n$ullll!!ons;nV<ll"mgl~gemeadSeaT"r1Jos 

AS of Februar'.l 23,Z011 

Pelle 25 01 3!t 
118 

us F,sMandW,lcthfeServ,ce 

Interagency ConsuHa110M'MDlVtng Logge,head Sea Turlles 

AS of Fet<ruary 23 2011 

Page26 of 3S 
119 

u.s Fl3handWiklJ,lttSe"",:e 

!nte",gen<:yC"",uUat".ns",vo!"",glGQgemeo.dS.~Tu<l''I!$ 

AS Qf Febru.ry 23. 1011 

1'.~27QI3S 
120 

lJS F'$~an6WMltlaSe""ce 

inte'3gency Con.".Ha\,cns <ovOi"ng Log9~'heaj S<)a Turtles 

Mt,(Fe-bruaoy23201' 

Page 28 of 39 
121 

u.s f\Oh.ndWtldl~eS""'C8 

"!oraQ8m:), Consulla\I'QOS onvOIW>'ll LOllQ'lmoadSeaTun.les 

AS offebJ\lDI}' 23,2011 

Page 29 01 39 
122 

U5F,shar.d\l'.\ldhleSeMce 

'nlernqencyConsullall01\~,p""I.'n{lLo9gemea<lSeaTurtl", 

As 01 February 2J 2011 

Page 300139 
123 

US f,!lhan<!W\!<1lir .. S .. MCe 

ll'llelllgeney Ccn$ur..!t<lnS .,....,h ..... ';1 LO';lvtltMlI<! Sn T~rtle$ 

A$oIFebll,lary 23. 2011 

Page31<:1/3S 
124 

us rtSnand '<Wdl,("Se""ce 

InteragencyCon<wlta:",n"M"lv",gloggerh~adSea ~ullies 

A<o'FcofUary232ijl1 

Page 12 "f39 
125 

U S FIsh and Wlld~fa Sen",;q 

InHI",ge~ Consultsloons m~ol\.'l"lllowemaad Sea Turnes A~QIFebrua'l' 23,2011 

Page 33 Cli39 
126 

U5 f·.haMW'I~I,feSe",'ce 

Interagency C<J~sullai'o~s onvnl~ln9 Loggerhead Sea T~rtles 

AsolFebn.J3ry232D)1 

Page 34<lf 3\l 
127 

us F!lh.ndW'II:MeSe ..... lte 

Inle~QencyGonS>JtlltlOn$lI'Ivol"'noL09g<!meadSuTurtJe$ 

AsOf Februllry 23,201t 

PlIlle35 Qf39 
128 

u S f,,~ ~"d W,ldl,(~ Se""ce 

InleragencyConsuliaMns",volvlngl"gg~'he~dSea Tur1~s 

Asoffeb'''~'Yn lOll 

P~g" 36 of 39 
129 

u.s F'$bandWI!dI~eS&lV!tlI 

loIeragency ConsuHahons nw"rmg logy.amnd Sea Tu~lu 

AsofFebruBIY23,20l, 

Paga37o.139 
130 

us f"handWddl'!eS""',ee 

Inl~[age~cy Cons"II~I",~~ mvO)v'ng logg"'Ma~ Sea Tunle, 

A,.offeoruary232011 

Page 3B of 39 
131 

US Fish and'Nildi!feServlce 

lnlerllgt-nqCcna"nahonsllwolvmS Loggerhuds",a Turtle$ 

AS of FebNllry 23. 2011 

POll" 39 ot 3'3 
132 

Daniel M. Ashe 

Nominee for Director, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Publications ........................................................... 2 - 3 

Testimony ................................................................. 4 

Speeches ............................................................... 5 - 6 
133 

Publications 

Ashe DM. 1982. Fish and wildlife mitigation: Description and analysis of estuarine applications. Coastal 

Management \O( I): I-52. 

Ashe DM and Corp of Engineers. 1980. Fish and wildlife mitigation: An introductory analysis of the 

concept and its importance in the management of estuarine resources. Corps of Engineers, Seattle, 

W A. Seattle District. 52 p. 

Ashe D. 2007. Wildlife, wikis, and web 2.0. Wildlife Professional (TWS) 1(2):9. 

htt:p:lIlibrary.fws.govflLLlDaniashe-wp I.pdf 

Ashe Daniel. 2006. When life itself hangs in the balance: The tug-of-war between science and advocacy 

within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 20th annual meeting of the society for conservation biology 

on conservation without borders; June 24-28, 2006; San Jose, California (USA). 

Ashe D. 2003. A century of conservation. Endangered Species Bulletin 28(1):4-8. 

htt:p:lllibrary.l:Ws.govIlLLlDan/ashe-esb28.pdf 

Ashe DM. 1984. Ocs revenue sharing. 

Ashe DM. 1982. Fish and wildlife mitigation: Description and analysis of estuarine applications. Coastal 

Zone Management Journal 10(1):1. 

Griffith B, Scott JM, Adamcik R, Ashe D, Czech B, Fischman R, Gonzalez P, Lawler J, McGuire AD, 

Pidgorna A. 2009. Climate change adaptation for the US national wildlife refuge system. 

Environmental Management 44(6): 1043-52. http://library.l:Ws.govflLLlDaniashe-em44.pdf 

Hall, H. Dale and Ashe D. and 2007. Changing as Conditions Change. Wildlife Professional (TWS) 

2(3): II. http://library.l:Ws.gov/ILLlDaniAshe-wp2.txt 

Kitsos TR and Ashe DM. 1989. Problems in the institutionalization of the U.S. global change program: A 

non-scientist's viewpoint. EarthQuest 3(1):14. 

Meretsky VJ, Fischman RL, Karr JR, Ashe DM, Scott J, Noss RF, Schroeder RL. 2006. New directions in 

conservation for the national wildlife refuge system. Bioscience 56(2): 135-43. 

http://library.l:Ws.govIlLLlDan/ashe-bioscience56.pdf 

Richardson DM, Hellmann II, McLachlan JS, Sax DF, Schwartz MW, Gonzalez P, Brennan EJ, Camacho 

A, Root TL, Sala OE, et al. 2009. Multidimensional evaluation of managed relocation. Proceedings of 

the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106(24):9721-4. 

htt:p:lllibrary. fws. gOY ITLLlDan/ashe-pnas I 06. pd f 

'Op-ed Submitted to Washington Post in official capacity (unpublished). Response to editorial entitled, 

"Endangered Species: Judges and lawyers run the Fish and Wildlife Service." 

Refuge Update: 

Author: Ashe, Dan 

Edition: Ian-Feb 2005 

Title of Article: FOCUS - Science in the Refuge System 

Page Numbers: 8-9 

Link: htt:p:llwww.fws.gov/refuges/refugeUpdate/pdfs/refUp JanFeb 2005.pdf 

2 
134 

Author: Ashe, Dan 

Edition: September-October 2007 

Title of Article: FOCUS: Diplomacy, Leadership, Compromise It Took All Three to Make a Law 

Page Numbers: 8-9 

Link: http://www.fws.gov/refuges/refugeUpdate/pdfs/refUp SeptOct 2007.pdf 

Author: Ashe, Dan 

Edition: July-August 2008 

Title of Article: FOCUS: Strategic Habitat Conservation: Fulfilling Our Mission in a Rapidly Changing 

World (introduction) 

Page Numbers: 8 

Link: http://www.fws.govlrefugesirefugeUpdate/pdfs/refUp JulyAug 2008.pdf 

3 
135 

Testimony 

Date: 05/25/10 

Congressional Committee: House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and 

Wildlife 

Subject: H.R. 5284, the Sikes Act Amendments Act of2010 

Link: 

http://www.fws.gov/lawsITESTIMONYllllthl2010/Ashe HR5284%20Sikes%20Aci"/o20A 5.2S.20JO.ht 

!!!! 

Date: 12/03/09 

Congressional Committee: Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife 

Subject: Wildlife Conservation and Invasive Species bills: H.R. 2188; H.R. 3433; H.R. 3537; S. 1214; S. 

1421; S. 373; S.ISI9; S. 1965; and H.R. 509 

Link: http://www.fws.gov/lawsITESTlMONYllllth/2009/ Ashe 12.03.09.html 

Date: 11/06/09 

Congressional Committee: House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security 

Subject: H.R. 2811, to amend the Lacey Act to include constrictor snakes of Python genus as an injurious 

animal 

Link: http://www.fws.gov/laws/TESTIMONYllllthl2009/Ashe H.R.%202811 pythons 11.06.09.html 

Date: 06/24/08 

Congressional Committee: House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

Subject: Planning for a Changing Climate and its Impacts on Wildlife and Oceans; State and Federal 

Efforts and Needs 

Link: 

http://www.fws.gov/laws/TESTlMONY/IIOth/2008/AsheClimateChangeandAdaptiveWildlifeMgmt.html 

Date: 09/20/0 I 

Congressional Committee: Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

Subject: H.R. 1370, the Refuge Concession Bill 

Link: http://www.fws.gov/laws/TESTIMONY/107th/2001/Asheconcessions.htm 

Date: 03/29/0 I 

Congressional Committee: Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

Subject: the development of Comprehensive Conservation Plans and the operations and maintenance needs 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Link: http://www.fws.gov/lawsITESTIMONY/107th/200Ilashe329.html 

Date: 03/30/00 

Congressional Committee: Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans of the House 

Committee on Resources 

Subject: H.R. 3176, To Provide for a Study of Wetland Restoration at Kealia Pond National Wildlife 

Refuge in Hawaii, and H.R. 3292, To Authorize the Establishment of the Cat Island National Wildlife 

Refuge in Louisiana 

Link: http://www.fws.gov/laws/TESTIMONY/106th12000/march30.htm 

Date: 02/03/99 

Congressional Committee: House Committee on Resources 

Subject: Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and the Minneapolis-S!. Paul Airport Expansion 

Project 

Link: http://www.fws.govllawsITESTlMONY/106thlI999/feb3.btm 

4 
136 

Speeches 

Date: 09/22/10 

Speech: Defenders of Wildlife -2010 Spirit of Defenders Award for Public Service 

Date: 091l61l 0 

Speech: BP Oil Spill Overview American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting 

Date: 06/27/10-06/30/10 

Speech: Midwest Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Annual Directors Meeting 

Date: 06/25/10 

Speech: National Wildlife Refuge Association - Board Meeting - Homer, AK 

Date: 06/12/10 

Speech: Outdoor Writers Association of America Annual Conference 

Date: 04/26/10 

Speech: Northeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agency Annual Conference 

Date: 04/091l 0 

Speech: Remarks at Memorial Service for Sam D. Hamilton, Washington, DC. 

Date: 03/24/10 

Speech: Conservation Leadership Forum Listening Session- 2010 North American Wildlife and Natural 

Resources Conference 

Date: 03/241l 0 

Speech: Plenary Session Remarks - 2010 North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 

Date: 03122/10 

Speech: Climate Change Legislation on Natural Resources Conservation - 20 I 0 North American Wildlife 

and Natural Resources Conference 

Date: 0311511 0 

Speech: COPI5 Polar Bear Session - Hosted by Defenders of Wildlife 

Date: 01/121l0-01/13/\0 

Speech: Western Governors' Wildlife Council Meeting 

Date: 2010 

Speech: Announcement of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Strategic Plan for Climate Change 

Date: 2010 

Speech: Dan Ashe AFW A Presentation 

Date: 12/07/09 

Speech: Midwestern Fish and Wildlife Association, Winter Meeting, Indianapolis, IN. "Rising to the 

Challenge: 21st Century Conservation - A Climate of Change." 

Date: 11/12/09 

Speech: Bird Conservation Alliance, Washington, DC. "Rising to the Challenge: Addressing Accelerated 

Climate Change." 

Date: 10/12109 

5 
137 

Æ 

Speech: Land Trust Alliance, Land Rally, Portland, OR. "Rising to the Challenge: Addressing 

Accelerated Climate Change." 

Date: 09/2009 

Speech: North American Plenary Session 

Date: 06/25/09 

Speech: Pew Center for Climate Change, Workshop on Climate Adaptation, Washington, DC. "Rising to 

the Challenge: Strategies and Actions for Addressing Climate Change." 

Date: 0611 0/09 

Speech: National Wildlife Refuge System Planning Workshop, Shepherdstown, WV. "Rising to the 

Challenge: Strategies and Actions for Addressing Climate Change." 

Date: 05/17/09 

Speech: Association ofFish and Wildlife Agencies, Climate Change Committee Meeting and Working 

Session, Crystal City, VA. "Rising to the Challenge: Strategies and Actions for Addressing Climate 

Change." 

Date: 01130109 

Speech: Pacific Coast Interagency Workshop on Climate Change, San Francisco, CA. "Later is Over: The 

Imperative for Transformational Change in Conservation." 

Date: 12/01108 

Speech: Online Lecture for Indiana University. "The Measure of Conservation Success." 

Date: 06/25/08 

Speech: Federal Asian Pacific American Council, New York, NY. "Climate Change and Wildlife." 

Date: 05122106 

Speech: North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. "The Death of Deference." 

Date: 06/07/05 

Speech: Department of Defense Land Stewardship Workshop, Baltimore, MD. "Threatened and 

Endangered Species Conservation in the 21 st Century: Have Mountains of Thinking Taught Us to Think 

Like a Mountain?" 

Date: 11129/05 

Speech: Department of Defense, Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program. Partners 

in Environmental Technology, Technical Symposium and Workshop, Washington, DC. "The Marriage of 

Science and Management." 

6