U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

31–631 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

H.R. 6344, ‘‘LOCAL ACT OF 2018’’; H.R. 6360, 

‘‘PREDICTS ACT OF 2018’’; H.R. 6346, 

‘‘WHOLE ACT OF 2018’’; H.R. 6354, 

‘‘STORAGE ACT OF 2018’’; H.R. 6345, 

‘‘EMPOWERS ACT OF 2018’’; H.R. 3608, 

‘‘ENDANGERED SPECIES TRANSPARENCY 

AND REASONABLENESS ACT’’; H.R. 6364, 

‘‘LAMP ACT OF 2018’’; H.R. 6356, ‘‘LIST ACT 

OF 2018’’; AND H.R. 6355, ‘‘PETITION ACT 

OF 2018’’ 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Wednesday, September 26, 2018 

Serial No. 115–55 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

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

or 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Chairman Emeritus 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Vice Chairman 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Stevan Pearce, NM 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Paul Cook, CA 

Bruce Westerman, AR 

Garret Graves, LA 

Jody B. Hice, GA 

Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS 

Daniel Webster, FL 

Jack Bergman, MI 

Liz Cheney, WY 

Mike Johnson, LA 

Jenniffer Gonza ́lez-Colo ́n, PR 

Greg Gianforte, MT 

John R. Curtis, UT 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Vice Ranking Member 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

Colleen Hanabusa, HI 

Nanette Diaz Barraga ́n, CA 

Darren Soto, FL 

A. Donald McEachin, VA 

Anthony G. Brown, MD 

Wm. Lacy Clay, MO 

Jimmy Gomez, CA 

Nydia M. Vela ́zquez, NY 

Cody Stewart, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Wednesday, September 26, 2018 ................................................ 1 

Statement of Members: 

Biggs, Hon. Andy, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Arizona, prepared statement of ................................................................... 92 

Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah ... 5 

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

Gosar, Hon. Paul A., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Arizona, prepared statement of ................................................................... 60 

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

Arizona ........................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 2 

Johnson, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Louisiana, prepared statement of ................................................................ 59 

McClintock, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 69 

Norman, Hon. Ralph, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

South Carolina .............................................................................................. 53 

Tipton, Hon. Scott R., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 8 

Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arkansas .................................................................................................... 84 

Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State of Alaska . 75 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Dreher, Robert, Senior Vice President, Conservation Programs and 

General Counsel, Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC ........................ 25 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 27 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 36 

Johansson, Jamie, President, California Farm Bureau Federation, 

Sacramento, California ................................................................................. 16 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 18 

Renkes, Gregg, Director, Office of Policy Analysis, U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Washington, DC ...................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 11 

Sauter, David, County Commissioner, Klickitat County, Lyle, 

Washington .................................................................................................... 21 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 23 

Wood, Jonathan, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation, Washington, DC ..... 38 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 40 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record: 

Submissions for the record by Representative Bishop 

List of organizations and letters of support endorsing all nine bills .... 93 

Morning Consult poll ................................................................................ 96 

Submissions for the record by Representative LaMalfa 

Pit Resource Conservation District, Letter dated September 14, 2018 

to Secretary Ryan Zinke ........................................................................ 97 

Submissions for the record by Representative Grijalva 

Alaska Wilderness League et al., Letter dated September 25, 2018 

to Rep. Grijalva ...................................................................................... 98 

Page

IV 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record—Continued 

Submissions for the record by Representative Grijalva—Continued 

Comments of Attorneys General of Massachusetts, California, 

Maryland, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 

Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia ......................... 103 

Goodall, Dr. Jane, Testimony submitted for the record ......................... 48 

GreenLatinos, Letter dated September 26, 2018 to Rep. Grijalva ........ 101 

Hawkins, Rev. Jimmie R., et al., Letter dated September 25, 2018 

to Members of Congress ........................................................................ 102 

Union of Concerned Scientists, Letter dated September 25, 2018 to 

Rep. Grijalva .......................................................................................... 71 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 6344, TO AMEND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 TO ENCOURAGE VOLUNTARY 

CONSERVATION EFFORTS, ‘‘LOCAL ACT OF 2018’’; H.R. 6360, 

TO AMEND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 TO PROVIDE FOR GREATER CERTAINTY AND IMPROVED PLANNING 

FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT HOLDERS, ‘‘PREDICTS ACT 

OF 2018’’; H.R. 6346, TO AMEND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES 

ACT OF 1973 TO PROVIDE FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE TOTALITY OF CONSERVATION MEASURES IN DETERMINING 

THE IMPACT OF PROPOSED FEDERAL AGENCY ACTION, 

‘‘WHOLE ACT OF 2018’’; H.R. 6354, TO AMEND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 TO PROHIBIT DESIGNATION AS 

CRITICAL HABITAT OF CERTAIN AREAS IN ARTIFICIAL 

WATER DIVERSION OR DELIVERY FACILITIES, ‘‘STORAGE 

ACT OF 2018’’; H.R. 6345, TO PROVIDE FOR GREATER COUNTY 

AND STATE CONSULTATION WITH REGARD TO PETITIONS 

UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973, AND FOR 

OTHER PURPOSES, ‘‘EMPOWERS ACT OF 2018’’; H.R. 3608, TO 

AMEND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 TO REQUIRE PUBLICATION ON THE INTERNET OF THE BASIS FOR 

DETERMINATIONS THAT SPECIES ARE ENDANGERED 

SPECIES OR THREATENED SPECIES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ‘‘ENDANGERED SPECIES TRANSPARENCY AND 

REASONABLENESS ACT’’; H.R. 6364, TO AMEND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 TO INCREASE STATE AND 

LOCAL INVOLVEMENT IN MANAGEMENT PLANS, ‘‘LAMP ACT 

OF 2018’’; H.R. 6356, TO AMEND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES 

ACT OF 1973 TO PROVIDE FOR IMPROVED PRECISION IN THE 

LISTING, DELISTING, AND DOWNLISTING OF ENDANGERED 

SPECIES AND POTENTIALLY ENDANGERED SPECIES, ‘‘LIST 

ACT OF 2018’’; AND H.R. 6355, TO AMEND THE ENDANGERED 

SPECIES ACT OF 1973 TO DEFINE PETITION BACKLOGS AND 

PROVIDE EXPEDITED MEANS FOR DISCHARGING PETITIONS 

DURING SUCH A BACKLOG, ‘‘PETITION ACT OF 2018’’ 

Wednesday, September 26, 2018 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:11 p.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Bishop, Young, McClintock, Gosar, 

Tipton, LaMalfa, Denham, Westerman, Radewagen, Bergman; 

Grijalva, Costa, Sablan, Huffman, Beyer, and Gallego. 

Also present: Representative Norman. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. I want to welcome you all here today. 

This Committee hearing is going to come to order. 

2 

The Committee is meeting to hear testimony on nine bills that 

modernize the Endangered Species Act. 

Under Committee Rule 4(f), any opening oral statements at this 

hearing are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority 

Member. This will allow us to hear from our witnesses sooner and 

keep Members to their schedules. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that other Members’ opening statements be made part of the 

hearing record if they are submitted to the Subcommittee Clerk by 

5:00 p.m. 

Without objection, that is so ordered. 

I also ask unanimous consent that the following list of Members 

who are not on the Committee be allowed to sit on the dais and 

participate in this hearing from the dais. Specifically, Mr. Norman 

from Louisiana if and when he is there. Others will obviously be 

recognized from the dais, as well. 

Let me switch the order here, and allow Mr. Huffman, representing the Minority—if you would like 5 minutes for an opening 

statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The slate of bills 

before us today, I am sorry to say, Mr. Chairman, is a painful reminder of how far we have moved away from the bipartisan agreement that Democrats and Republicans used to share over a core set 

of values, and the values of conservation and respect for science, 

in particular. 

Both sides of the aisle used to agree that protecting America’s 

natural heritage for the enjoyment of this generation and future 

ones was a worthy goal, and that relying on sound science to guide 

conservation policy was the gold standard for natural resource 

management. 

I would like to remind everyone that when the ESA was enacted, 

it had strong bipartisan support, passed out of the Senate unanimously, was voted 390 to 12 out of the House of Representatives, 

and signed by a Republican President. 

The Endangered Species Act has long been one of our most 

successful and broadly supported conservation laws, and it has prevented the extinction of 99 percent of the species that have received its protection. 

The ESA, it is important to remember, only kicks in when a 

species is in danger of extinction, or when it is foreseeable that it 

will be in such danger. And if you think about it, if an emergency 

room doctor saved 99 percent of the patients that came through the 

door and put 90 percent of them on a clear and timely road to recovery, as the ESA has done with imperiled species, that doctor 

would receive universal praise. 

So, following on this analogy, it is alarming to note that one of 

the bills before us today wouldn’t even let the patient into the waiting room. If the waiting room is full, it would kick the patient out 

of the hospital, leaving it to suffer alone. This is not a way to 

manage species. 

3 

So, why does the ESA receive so much criticism by the Trump 

administration and some of my colleagues across the aisle? I suspect the answer is simple. The law requires Federal agencies to use 

the best available science to determine decisions, to prevent extinction, regardless of who produced the science. And that can be bad 

news for mining companies, oil and gas companies, big developers, 

and others. 

For example, one of the bills before us, H.R. 3608, deems anything submitted by states, tribes, or localities to be the bestavailable science, regardless of the quality of that information. 

Another bill, the STORAGE Act, would prohibit Federal agencies 

from designating critical habitat in man-made water infrastructure 

areas, further endangering California salmon and steelhead 

populations. 

And yet another bill, the LIST Act, would require the Secretary 

to de-list a species if he receives substantial scientific or commercial information showing that a species has recovered. Another 

handout to those wishing to develop and destroy important habitat 

for imperiled species. 

These bills ignore the fact that protecting fish and wildlife is not 

just good, in principle. It is good for the economy, and good for people, as well. The salmon fishermen in my district and elsewhere on 

the West Coast, for example, depend on a strong and functioning 

ESA to protect salmon runs, allowing them to continue catching 

healthy stocks. 

The bottom line is that the ESA has worked because decisions 

under the law must be made based on data and evidence. That is 

a pretty reasonable standard to uphold. 

So, yes, we no longer just cut down as many trees or catch as 

many fish as possible without thinking about the future. But that 

is a good thing, not just for fish and wildlife, but for future generations of people, as well. 

It would be a welcome change if we were really talking about 

modernizing the ESA, so that it works better for both people and 

wildlife. But these bills, unfortunately, won’t get us there. 

With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I haven’t done my statement, but I will recognize 

Mr. Grijalva for yours before I do that. 

STATEMENT OF RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a shame that the 

last hearing that this Committee is going to have before we return 

in November is such a fraud. It really is. 

The bills before us today are not in the best interest of the 

American public. They aren’t meant to fix the Endangered Species 

Act, as will be claimed by my Republican colleagues. They are not 

thoughtful pieces of legislation to fix real problems like the extinction crisis we currently face. They are bad-faith proposals designed 

to destroy the law and give handouts to oil and gas companies. 

4 

It is no coincidence that the American Petroleum Institute, the 

American Exploration and Mining Association, and the Western 

Energy Alliance have endorsed all these bills. 

While this political stunt of a hearing is ridiculous on its own, 

the titles of some of these bills are really insults to the public’s intelligence. My personal favorite is the STORAGE Act, or the Stop 

Takings on Reserve Antithetical to the Germane Encapsulation 

Act. It makes me wonder—to all my friends, both Republicans and 

Democrats—what the phrase ‘‘germane encapsulation’’ really even 

means. 

I am a little disappointed that Mr. McClintock’s bill is the only 

one without an acronym. I guess he missed the acronym meeting. 

The important thing to remember today is that the Endangered 

Species works. Despite years of Republican efforts to weaken the 

Act, to cut funding for agencies that protect and recover American 

wildlife, 99 percent of the listed species have continued to survive, 

and 90 percent are on schedule to meet recovery goals. These are 

facts that are not up for debate. 

Last year, the Committee passed a package of five extinction 

bills. They got no traction in the Full House because the public 

didn’t want them. Few people outside oil, gas, and mining industries actually opposed the Endangered Species Act. 

So, we hold these hearings and hold these votes and we have to 

wonder exactly why. 

Here, today, is a new package of damaging and misguided bills. 

They harm protected species and their habitats, they create barriers to listing species that need protection, they allow states to potentially over-ride listing decisions, they allow the use of faulty 

science, and undermine citizen involvement in the enforcement of 

the Act. They make too many other destructive and unwarranted 

changes to list them all. And we will do everything in our power 

to ensure that these bills suffer the same fate as the previous bills. 

These attacks on one of the most successful and popular conservation statutes in the history of the world are old, they are 

tired, and they are not fooling anyone. 

We are going to be hearing today that ESA kills jobs, or impedes 

economic growth. We hear this every time, and we still don’t have 

evidence. Words are not evidence. These claims are simply not 

grounded in reality. The U.S. economy has more than tripled in 

size since the law was passed, from $5 trillion in 1973 to $16 

trillion today. 

We have a duty to preserve species for the next generation. 

Indeed, a moral duty to do that. Instead of debating these bills, 

which are, in my mind, an embarrassment and a waste of time, we 

should be talking about how we can truly support the ESA, fund 

it fully, provide the personnel, and with that, let the job be done 

that legislation was intended to do. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:] 

5 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s a shame that the last hearing we’ll have in this 

Committee before we return in November is such a fraud. 

The bills before us today are not in the best interest of the American public. They 

aren’t meant to ‘‘fix the Endangered Species Act,’’ as my Republican colleagues will 

claim. They are not thoughtful pieces of legislation to fix real problems—like the 

extinction crisis we currently face. They are bad faith proposals designed to destroy 

the law and give handouts to oil and gas companies. 

It’s no coincidence that the American Petroleum Institute, the American 

Exploration & Mining Association, and the Western Energy Alliance have all 

endorsed these bills. 

While this political stunt of a hearing is ridiculous on its own, the titles of some 

of these bills are insults to the public’s intelligence. My personal favorite is the 

STORAGE Act, or the Stop Takings on Reserves Antithetical to Germane 

Encapsulation Act. It makes me wonder what my Republican friends think the 

phrase ‘‘germane encapsulation’’ even means. 

I’m a little disappointed that Mr. McClintock’s bill is the only one without an 

acronym—I guess he missed the memo—but I digress. 

The important thing to remember today is that the Endangered Species Act 

works. Despite years of Republican efforts to weaken the Act and cut funding for 

agencies that protect and recover American wildlife, 99 percent of listed species 

have continued to survive, and 90 percent are on schedule to meet their recovery 

goals. These facts are not up for debate. Deep down, even many Republicans know 

this. But the Republicans on this Committee pretend otherwise. 

Last year, this Committee passed a package of five extinction bills. They got no 

traction in the Full House because the public doesn’t want this. Few people outside 

the oil, gas and mining industries actually oppose the Endangered Species Act. 

So, we hold these meaningless hearings and hold these meaningless votes, and 

we have to wonder why. 

Here we are today with a new package of damaging and misguided bills. They 

harm protected species and their habitats. They create barriers to listing species 

that need protection. They allow states to potentially over-ride listing decisions. 

They allow the use of faulty science and undermine citizen involvement in enforcement of the Act. They make too many other destructive and unwarranted changes 

to list them all. And I will do everything in my power to ensure that these bills 

suffer the same fate as the previous bills. 

These attacks on one of the most successful and popular conservation statutes in 

the history of the world are old, they’re tired, and they’re not fooling anyone. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service have 

provided us with more than 40 years of evidence that the law gives states, localities, 

landowners, and private interests an incredible amount of flexibility to proceed with 

development projects. The law makes sure we build things and create jobs in ways 

that conserve fish, wildlife, plants and the landscapes they need to survive. These 

agencies are good at what they do. Congress needs to provide adequate funding for 

them to do their jobs, and then get out of the way. 

We’re going to hear today that complying with the ESA kills jobs or impedes economic growth. We hear this every time, and we still don’t have the evidence. Words 

are not evidence. These claims are simply not grounded in reality. The U.S. economy 

has more than tripled in size since the law was passed, from $5 trillion in 1973 to 

$16 trillion today. 

We have a moral duty to preserve species for the next generation, instead of 

debating these bills. They are an embarrassment and a waste of time. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, I think. I now want to yield to myself 

5 minutes for my opening remarks. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

The CHAIRMAN. I am appreciative of the wonderful comments 

that have been made by the Ranking Member, as well as the 

Ranking Vice Member here today. I am very happy that you are 

so supportive of the piece of legislation that was signed by Richard 

6 

Nixon. It is, indeed, his legacy. In fact, maybe we should have a 

monument on the Mall to Richard Nixon for ESA, EPA, Clean Air, 

and Clean Water Act. They all kind of roll together. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Wilderness? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, all sorts of bad ideas. 

So, what Mr. Grijalva said is actually correct. We are here today 

to talk about modernizing this Act. I want to thank the witnesses, 

the bills’ sponsors for being here today. I want to thank the 

Western Caucus and others who live in the West who understand. 

They have done a tremendous amount of work in drafting measures and building coalitions of support. 

The Endangered Species Act is an important law that is in need 

of improvements. Despite what some might have you believe, 

Americans actually do agree. The Morning Consult poll, which I 

want to ask unanimous consent to put into the record, conducted 

nationwide in September of 2018, showed 73 percent of Americans 

favor updating the Endangered Species Act. The poll also showed 

that a majority of Americans believe the main purpose of the 

Endangered Species Act should be to aid in the recovery of endangered plants and animal species, something it does not do now. 

More registered voters believe that states should be more responsible for managing the recovery of species than the Federal Government. And since 2015, there has been an 8 percent increase in 

voter opinions that state and local governments should be most 

responsible for managing endangered species efforts, primarily because the states actually work, and the Federal Government efforts 

don’t. 

Two in three support removing species from the endangered 

species list, returning it to state management if they meet all of 

the recovery goals, something that does not happen in practice 

today. Sixty-eight percent support revising the Endangered Species 

Act to focus efforts on conserving species before they become 

threatened or endangered. And they are right in all those 

approaches. 

Too often, species are indefinitely kept on the endangered species 

list. Litigation focuses the law on listing more species and not 

enough on actual recovery and eventually de-listing of species. 

State and local communities, and their expertise on the ground, 

are often cut out of the process. They have very little to say in the 

decisions to list and the most effective recovery strategies that can 

be used. 

At the end of the day, more focus needs to be on actual recovery 

and eventually de-listing a species. States should have a role in the 

recovery, rather than being ignored by the Federal Government. 

Science and best practices, rather than litigation and judges, 

should guide our decisions. 

The bills we are addressing today address these issues and they 

improve the law for the betterment of species and communities. 

Everything needs to be updated occasionally. It has been far too 

long since this was updated because we can do a better job, and 

we must do a better job. The Endangered Species Act is not necessarily being maligned, it is simply saying it is not working, and 

it needs to be made to work. 

I yield back the remainder of my time. 

7 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON

NATURAL RESOURCES

It’s been almost 45 years since the Endangered Species Act was first passed by 

Congress to protect and recover species at risk of extinction. Despite these worthy 

intentions, less than 2 percent of species have recovered enough to warrant removal 

from the list of endangered and threatened species. 

In the past several years, the Committee has held numerous hearings and heard 

testimony from dozens of witnesses on how the ESA has failed in its fundamental 

goal of recovering species. Further, the law has been misused to restrict land use, 

block economic activity, and stifle resource and infrastructure development. 

Excessive litigation has only exacerbated these issues and worked to drain resources 

away from actual conservation efforts. Clearly something is not working. 

I am optimistic that working with our colleagues in the Senate and this Administration, we can continue to lay the groundwork for ESA modernization. That is why 

we are here today to consider a package of bills from the Western Caucus that modernize the ESA. The nine bills before us today—two of which are bipartisan—seek 

to improve the Act in a manner that enhances species recovery without unduly 

burdening communities, economies and livelihoods. 

Action needs to be taken on numerous fronts to achieve these goals. Increasing 

efficiency and providing certainty regarding regulations are paramount to resolving 

conflict arising from the ESA. Bills presented today promote regulatory certainty 

and reward good behavior of public and private entities to help recover species. 

H.R. 6344, the LOCAL Act, is a bipartisan effort that will codify programs and 

increase certainty on regulations, incentivizing private property owners to manage 

land in a way that will benefit species we are so desperately trying to protect. 

H.R. 6360, the PREDICTS Act, will codify the Clinton Administration’s ‘‘No 

Surprises’’ regulation, supporting public and private entities that faithfully uphold 

their agreements to help endangered species. 

H.R. 6346, the bipartisan WHOLE Act, will allow the totality of conservation efforts to be considered before Federal actions are taken, ensuring projects won’t harm 

species while incentivizing private contributions to help recover species. 

H.R. 6354, the STORAGE Act, ensures misunderstandings, like designating limited water reservoirs and water infrastructure areas as critical habitat, will not take 

place, benefiting not only endangered species, but also water and power infrastructure operators and their customers. 

In addition to improving regulatory certainty, the ESA should be adapted to provide more meaningful opportunities for states, tribes, and local communities to be 

involved in the ESA decision-making process. These local entities often have some 

of the most specialized knowledge about the threats facing species and have successful local conservation measures in place to counter such threats and to ensure the 

survival of the species. 

H.R. 6345, the EMPOWERS Act, requires Federal agencies to consult states for 

data when listing decisions are considered that will impact a state. 

H.R. 3608, sponsored by Congressman McClintock, improves transparency by requiring that relevant state data be utilized in listing decisions and that data used 

as the basis for a listing decision be publicly disclosed, as well as information concerning ESA litigation. 

H.R. 6364, the LAMP Act, will assist state and local governments by allowing the 

establishment of cooperative agreements to manage species and habitats. 

Last, one thing we can all agree on is species recovery. H.R. 6356, the LIST Act, 

will help bring the ESA up to date, authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to delist species discovered to be ecologically abundant. 

H.R. 6355, the PETITION Act, will reform the highly abused petition process, allowing for a petition backlog when frivolous petitions stack up and the Federal 

Government becomes vulnerable to lawsuits. 

I look forward to discussing these bills today and working together, along with 

my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to find common ground on how to best 

improve this important law to ensure its success for future generations. 

I want to thank our witnesses and bill sponsors for being here today, and I look 

forward to hearing their testimony about these important measures. 

8 

The CHAIRMAN. Now I am going to introduce the witnesses. We 

have, first of all, Mr. Greg Renkes, who is the Director of Office 

Policy Analysis with the U.S. Department of the Interior. 

I appreciate you being here. 

I wish to yield 30 seconds for Mr. LaMalfa, so he can introduce 

our second witness. 

If you would, please. 

Mr. LAMALFA. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the honor 

of doing that. 

The President of California Farm Bureau, Jamie Johansson, has 

joined us today, and we are very pleased to have him and part of 

his team and his leadership out here with us. 

So, thank you for your attendance today. 

He is also a neighbor of mine in my home county, and purveys 

a very, very find olive oil product up there that is part of a very, 

very nice Ag. tour that goes on in October in Butte County, so it 

is fun to take part of that and see his family and operation there. 

I know that it really comes from the heart, where the Ag. background is. 

So, thank you for joining us today. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Our third witness is David Sauter, 

who is a County Commissioner in Washington State. 

I am saying that because there is no way I am ever going to pronounce your county properly, so you will have to do that for me. 

Thanks. 

Then Mr. Robert Dreher, who is the Senior Vice President with 

the Conservation Program and General Counsel at Defenders of 

Wildlife. 

And our last witness is Mr. Jonathan Wood, attorney with the 

Pacific Legal Foundation in Washington, DC. 

I remind our witnesses that, under our Committee Rules, they 

are limited on their oral statement to 5 minutes, but the entire 

written statement will appear in the hearing record. 

I am assuming you have all been here before, and recognize the 

mechanism in front of you. When your time starts, the green light 

goes on. As soon as it hits yellow, you have 1 minute left. When 

it is red, I am going to be snotty to you and actually cut you off 

in mid-sentence. So, please watch that red light. Don’t let it hit 

you. 

With that, we are going to go through each bill individually and 

allow Members to ask witnesses questions pertaining to the bills 

being considered. 

We are going to start with H.R. 6344 by Mr. Tipton, which 

amends the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to encourage voluntary conservation efforts. 

The Chair is now going to recognize Mr. Tipton if he would like 

to introduce his piece of legislation. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. SCOTT R. TIPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to also thank our 

panel for taking the time to be here today. I do appreciate the opportunity to be able to speak in support of the bipartisan Land 

9 

Ownership Collaboration Accelerates Life Act, otherwise known as 

the LOCAL Act. 

I firmly believe that the most effective approach to species recovery and conservation is through proactive, localized efforts that 

take into account the unique landscape, habitat, and ecological conditions of an area. It is critical to empower the landowners who 

have their boots on the ground every day to lead critical conservation and recovery efforts. 

The LOCAL Act would amend and, I believe, strengthen the 

Endangered Species Act to give the Federal Government the opportunity to engage non-Federal landowners in voluntary conservation 

efforts through the species recovery agreements, habitat reserve 

agreements, private party conservation grants, and a conservation 

planning loan program. 

I don’t think you can find a better steward of public lands or a 

protector of animals than landowners who are out working their 

land every day for farming, ranching, or other purposes. They know 

the challenges that threatened and endangered species face, and 

they are in a unique position to be able to provide input on the best 

conservation strategies. 

Through a species recovery agreement or a habitat reserve agreement, the Secretary of the Interior could enter into an agreement 

with a non-Federal landowner who agrees to carry out activities 

that protect or restore habitat and contribute to the recovery of an 

endangered or threatened species. The landowner would receive 

payments to cover the costs of these agreements. 

Through private-party conservation grants, a private property 

owner could receive financial conservation aid to alleviate the burdensome ESA compliance, and states, counties, and municipalities 

could receive assistance for conservation planning to the conservation planning loan programs. 

We have seen how collaboration and localized initiatives have 

benefited species like the sage-grouse in Colorado. The best way to 

be able to protect species is by preventing them from getting listed 

in the first place, so we need to start being proactive instead of reactive. This is the goal of the LOCAL Act. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. We are now going to turn to our panel. 

Once again, you can have 5 minutes to begin with. You have nine 

bills that we are going to handle here. If you wish to speak to all 

nine bills, that is fine. If you want to try to sum up your entire 

statement the first time around and then, if you want to add to 

that when we hit the other bills, however you would like to handle 

that. 

Mr. Renkes, let me recognize you first to talk about, hopefully, 

all nine. And then we will see if there is stuff that can be added 

to you afterwards. 

STATEMENT OF GREGG RENKES, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

POLICY ANALYSIS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. RENKES. Thank you, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member 

Grijalva, and members of the Committee. My name is Gregg 

Renkes. I am the Director of the Office of Policy Analysis in the 

10 

Department of the Interior, and I appreciate the opportunity to 

present the Department’s views to you today on the nine bills to 

amend the Endangered Species Act. 

The Administration supports the goals of the ESA to prevent extinction and foster recovery of species in danger of extinction. We 

pursue these goals, knowing the Federal Government must be a 

good neighbor, and also knowing that critical expertise and resources for species recovery most often lie with the states. 

We must partner with the states and private landowners, who 

often bear a disproportionate share of the burden in conserving 

Endangered Species-listed species, particularly in the West. And 

we are working to make common-sense improvements to ESA 

implementation in recently proposed regulations. 

Earlier this month, Secretary Zinke issued a memorandum reaffirming the authority of states to exercise broad powers as stewards of the Nation’s fish and wildlife on Federal public lands and 

waters. He instructed all bureaus to complete a review of Fish and 

Wildlife regulations, policies, and guidance, and provide recommendations as to how the Department can better align with 

states. 

The Secretary recognizes that states are good stewards of our 

natural resources, and have a long history of sound fish and wildlife management. This is why the Department participates in the 

joint Federal-State task force on ESA policy, and was a participant 

with the Western Governors Association endangered species efforts. 

The Administration is committed to making the ESA work for the 

American people, and we will continue to work with the states and 

Congress to improve implementation of the law. 

Mr. Chairman, a modern vision of conservation is one that uses 

cooperative federalism, public-private partnerships, market-based 

solutions, the best-available science, transparency, and sensible, 

efficient regulation to achieve the greatest good for the greatest 

number of people over the longest term. 

The bills before the Committee today are excellent examples of 

these principles, and complement the Administration’s efforts. 

Collectively, these bills seek to improve the ESA by providing 

greater regulatory certainty, embracing federalism and transparency, and improving frameworks for listing, de-listing, and recovery of species. The Department supports these goals. 

Staying within my allotted time, I refer the Committee to my 

written statement for the Department’s more detailed comments on 

each of the nine bills. 

Four of the bills being discussed today seek to improve regulatory certainty for states, local governments, and private landowners impacted by the ESA. Consistent with the goals of the 

LOCAL Act, the Department believes strongly in the value of voluntary conservation, the power of financial incentives, and in 

providing regulatory assurances to landowners doing good work on 

their land. 

And we agree with the sponsors of the WHOLE Act, the 

STORAGE Act, and the PREDICTS Act, that improving predictability and regulatory certainty under the ESA is of paramount importance to the American people. 

11 

We support the themes of the EMPOWERS Act, LAMP Act, and 

Endangered Special Transparency and Reasonableness Act to 

strengthen the cooperative federalism structure of the ESA, and 

improve transparency. 

The Department recognizes that state fish and game agencies are 

experts in the conservation field, and critical partners in our work 

to achieve ESA goals. 

The PETITION Act and LIST Act seek to improve procedures for 

listing and de-listing. The Department agrees more needs to be 

done. We have proposed regulations to clarify the factors used to 

determine species recovery. The petition process needs to be improved. We all understand the time and cost of litigation have become significant challenges in implementing ESA. 

As the ESA approaches its 50th anniversary, the Department 

recognizes the need to modernize the law and make it work for the 

American people. Our commitment to improving implementation of 

the ESA is reflected in the Administration’s reform and reorganization recommendations, which return the National Marine 

Fisheries Service to Interior, merging it with the Fish and Wildlife 

Service. This would consolidate the Endangered Species Act and 

Marine Mammal Protection Act into one agency within Interior, 

resulting in more consistent policy and improve service to stakeholders. 

The Administration is committed to common-sense solutions that 

make the ESA as efficient, reliable, and defensible as possible, and 

conserving threatened and endangered species and protecting the 

ecosystems upon which they depend. We appreciate the 

Committee’s work toward this end, and support the goals of the 

nine bills before the Committee today. 

The Department stands ready to work with you to address these 

and other legislative efforts to improve the Endangered Species 

Act. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Renkes follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GREGG RENKES, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF POLICY ANALYSIS, 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ON H.R. 6356, LIST ACT OF 2018; H.R. 6345, 

EMPOWERS ACT OF 2018; H.R. 6344, LOCAL ACT OF 2018; H.R. 6355, 

PETITION ACT OF 2018; H.R. 6364, LAMP ACT OF 2018; H.R. 6360, PREDICTS 

ACT OF 2018; H.R. 6346, WHOLE ACT OF 2018; H.R. 6354, STORAGE ACT OF

2018; AND H.R. 3608, ‘‘ENDANGERED SPECIES TRANSPARENCY AND REASONABLENESS ACT’’ 

INTRODUCTION

Good afternoon Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the 

Committee. I am Gregg Renkes, Director of the Office of Policy Analysis in the 

Department of the Interior (Department). I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on nine bills to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). 

The Administration supports the goals of the ESA to prevent the extinction of 

species and to foster recovery of species in danger of extinction. We pursue these 

goals knowing that the Federal Government must be a good neighbor and work collaboratively with states and landowners who often bear a disproportionate burden 

in conserving species protected under the ESA, given that approximately two-thirds 

of lands in the United States are privately owned. That is why the Administration 

is working diligently to partner with states and landowners and make commonsense improvements to how we administer the ESA, while maintaining our environmental standards and stewardship responsibilities. 

Each of the bills being discussed today—H.R. 6356, H.R. 6345, H.R. 6344, 

H.R. 6355, H.R. 6364, H.R. 6360, H.R. 6346, H.R. 6354, and H.R. 3608—seeks to 

improve implementation of the ESA. In general, the Administration supports the 

12 

goals of these bills to improve coordination with, and expand the role of, the states 

in implementing the ESA, to improve transparency in decision making, to expand 

tools to encourage voluntary conservation on private lands, and to improve the processes for listing, down-listing, de-listing and recovery of species. The Department 

welcomes the opportunity to work with the Committee to improve the ESA’s 

effectiveness at its primary goals—preventing extinction and recovery—while 

reducing and avoiding unnecessary burdens. 

BACKGROUND

The ESA is one of our Nation’s most important wildlife conservation laws. It is 

implemented jointly by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) (together known as ‘‘the Services’’). The law’s stated purpose is to provide 

a program and means for the conservation of threatened and endangered species 

and the ecosystems upon which they depend. When a species is designated as 

threatened or endangered—or ‘‘listed’’ under the ESA—it is in urgent need of help. 

The law directs the Services to use the best available scientific and commercial information to determine whether a species needs to be listed, to identify and address 

the threats to the species, and to facilitate the recovery of the species. 

ADMINISTRATION PRIORITIES

The Administration is committed to making the ESA work for the American 

people. The ESA has had some notable success since its passage over 40 years ago— 

bald eagles and peregrine falcons, once rare in the lower 48 states, are fully recovered, and we have brought species like the California condor and black-footed ferret 

back from the very brink of extinction. But as we look at our record of de-listing 

and recovery there is clearly room for improvement. Implementation of the law regularly generates frustration and controversy among private landowners, states, 

regulated industries, and environmental advocates alike. Some argue that getting 

species on the list is easier than getting them off. Particularly in western states, 

the law and certain species have become lightning rods for intense disagreement. 

Our commitment to improving implementation of the ESA is reflected in the 

Administration’s Reform Plan and Reorganization Recommendations which includes 

a proposal to merge the Department of Commerce’s NMFS with the Service. This 

merger would consolidate the administration of the ESA and Marine Mammal 

Protection Act in one agency and combine the Service’s science and management 

capacity, resulting in more consistent Federal fisheries and wildlife policy and improved service to stakeholders and the public, particularly on infrastructure 

permitting. 

The Department is focused on improving implementation of the ESA and has 

placed a high priority on regulatory reform. A modern vision of conservation is one 

that uses cooperative federalism, public-private partnerships, market-based 

solutions, the best available science, and sensible regulations in order to achieve the 

greatest good in the longest term. To that end, in July of this year, the Service and 

NMFS jointly proposed regulations to modify the parameters for Federal agency 

consultation; clarify and improve some of the standards under which listings, delisting, reclassifications, and critical habitat designations are made; and adopt a 

change in approach to how the Service applies protections to threatened species. 

These proposed revisions are based on public input, the best available science, and 

best practices and are intended to improve conservation results and reduce the regulatory burden on the American people. 

In addition to pursuing these regulatory revisions, the Department and the 

Service continue to work to address concerns raised by state and local governments, 

as well as other stakeholders, through administrative initiatives to improve implementation of the ESA. As part of these efforts, the Service has sought to bring 

greater transparency and predictability to the listing process, which benefits stakeholders and the public. To achieve this, the Service developed and released a 

National Listing Workplan, which prioritizes listing and critical habitat decisions 

over a 7-year period. In addition to providing transparency and predictability, the 

workplan helps the Service and its partners be strategic in delivering conservation 

on the ground to prevent the need to list species under the ESA. The workplan identifies candidate species and species petitioned for listing and undergoing a 12-month 

finding. 

In a similar vein, late last year, the Service also developed a National Downlisting 

and Delisting Workplan that outlines upcoming actions addressing 5-year status reviews, petitions undergoing a 12-month finding, and proposed rules to down-list and 

13 

de-list species over a 3-year period. The workplan was developed to provide greater 

predictability regarding the timing of recovery actions. 

The Service also developed the Species Status Assessment (SSA) framework as 

part of the ongoing effort to improve implementation of the ESA and enhance conservation success. An SSA is a focused, science-based, repeatable, and rigorous 

assessment of a species’ ability to maintain self-sustaining populations over time. 

The result is a single document that delivers foundational science for informing all 

ESA decisions, including listing determinations, consultations, grant allocations, 

permitting, and recovery planning. 

When it comes to developing guidance on how to best help listed species achieve 

recovery, the Service has revised its approach. Informed by the Species Status 

Assessment, the Services is improving and streamlining the way it develops recovery plans to produce them faster and with more flexibility to adapt to new information or circumstances affecting species. 

Additionally, the Service is tackling the backlog of recovery plans, 5-year status 

reviews, and de-listing and down-listing actions. The Service must manage its multiple responsibilities for recovery planning, recovery actions, de-listing and downlisting rulemaking, and 5-year status reviews concurrently and is working to 

develop a national multi-year strategy to ensure balance among these responsibilities. In the FY2019 Budget, the Administration proposed modest funding increases 

to expand the Service’s capacity to ensure that recovery plans have objective and 

measurable recovery criteria and to address 5-year status review recommendations. 

Finally, the Department and Service are committed to being good partners to the 

states and working to incorporate that in all they do. In support of that, earlier this 

month, Secretary Zinke issued a Memorandum to all Bureaus reaffirming the 

authority of the states to exercise their legal authority to regulate fish and wildlife 

species on Federal public lands and waters, except as otherwise required by Federal 

law. The Secretary recognizes that states are good stewards of our natural resources 

and practice sound management of fish and wildlife while allowing appropriate opportunities for citizens to enjoy public resources. 

I offer the following comments on the individual bills under consideration today. 

H.R. 6356—Less Imprecision in Species Treatment (LIST) Act of 2018 

The LIST Act would require the Secretary to initiate a de-listing rule when a 

species meets the recovery goals described in an associated recovery plan, or when 

the Secretary determines that the species is recovered based on available information. It requires a species to be de-listed if the Secretary finds that it was listed 

based on inaccurate, fraudulent, or misrepresentative information. Additionally, it 

would prevent parties from submitting petitions for a period of 10 years if the 

Secretary determines that they knowingly submitted fraudulent species data. The 

LIST Act would transform recovery plans from advisory documents, the content of 

which are not subject to legal challenge, into action-forcing documents. If enacted, 

recovery plans would become decision documents and may be subject to legal 

challenge. The bill would also shield negative petition findings and de-listing 

determinations from public review and comment, and shield a subset of negative 

findings from judicial review, while retaining those public participation and oversight mechanisms for positive petition findings and listing determinations. 

The Department and the Service values science-based decision making and want 

to ensure that it continues. The Department would welcome the opportunity to work 

with the Committee on these areas of the bill. 

H.R. 6345—Ensuring Meaningful Petition Outreach While Enhancing 

Rights of States (EMPOWERS) Act of 2018 

The EMPOWERS Act would require petitioners to notify affected states and 

counties prior to submitting petitions to the Secretary. It would also enable states 

to advise the Secretary on petitions and require the Secretary to demonstrate that 

the information provided by a state or county government is incorrect if the 

Secretary disagrees with a recommendation that the petition is not warranted. The 

bill would also require the Secretary to provide advance notice to affected states and 

counties of a proposed regulation, invite recommendations from the state and county 

governments, and require the Secretary to respond within a certain time frame if 

the Secretary disagrees with a not warranted recommendation. 

The Department supports advance notification from petitioners to state governments regarding forthcoming petitions as an important means of increasing transparency and raising awareness among affected entities, and recently revised the 

regulations governing processing of petitions to require such advance notification. 

The Department welcomes the information, data, and advice provided by state and 

local governments. The Secretary will continue to make species determinations 

14 

based on the best available scientific and commercial information. State fish and 

wildlife agencies are expert agencies in the conservation of fish, wildlife and plants, 

and the Service makes special effort to obtain information from those agencies and 

give special consideration to their views. Federal agencies will continue to work with 

the states and local communities to ensure the best possible science is used for decision making. For wide ranging species, the requirement to provide advance notification and treat information from county governments as the best available science 

will be procedurally burdensome and problematic. Additionally, requirements and 

associated deadlines related to proposed regulations in the bill may increase workload for agency staff and may expose the Department to additional litigation risk. 

We welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues with the Committee. 

H.R. 6344—Land Ownership Collaboration Accelerates Life Act (LOCAL) of 

2018 

The LOCAL Act would establish new programs administered by the Secretary to 

incentivize voluntary conservation on private lands. These include incentive payments for short-term conservation agreements for listed species; cost-share 

payments and incidental take permits for long-term conservation contracts for listed 

species, candidate species, or species of concern; incentive payments for the preservation of habitat for listed species; and grants for private landowners implementing 

conservation practices for listed species on their land. It also establishes a habitat 

conservation planning loan program for state and local governments. The bill also 

creates an aid program to compensate landowners for the fair market value of a 

project on their land that would not comply with section 9(a). Additionally, the bill 

requires the Secretary to review applications for incidental take permits for private 

landowners within a certain time frame. 

The Department strongly supports voluntary conservation agreements for species 

and habitats and recognizes the need for incentives to encourage broad participation. To that end, the Service offers Candidate Conservation Agreements with 

Assurances (CCAAs), Safe Harbor Agreements (SHAs), and Habitat Conservation 

Plans (HCPs) to landowners, with the incentive for participation primarily based on 

regulatory assurances. This bill would direct the Service to offer a variety of new 

species and habitat conservation programs to landowners, with the primary incentive for participation being financial support. Considering the creation of a significant new financial assistance program requires careful consideration of budgetary 

impacts to ensure consistency with the Administration’s broader fiscal goals. While 

Federal funding, to the extent that it is available, could provide strong incentives 

to encourage conservation efforts by additional landowners, we would like to work 

with the Committee to promote broader participation in CCAAs, SHAs, and HCPs, 

which all provide regulatory assurances. 

In light of the overlap between the provisions of H.R. 6344, H.R. 6360, and 

H.R. 6364 concerning voluntary conservation agreement vehicles and provisions, we 

recommend that the Committee work with the Department to reconcile the separate 

but related provisions in these three bills. We would like to work with the 

Committee to ensure these programs are structured in a manner consistent with the 

Administration’s proposals to achieve operational efficiencies in similar conservation 

programs managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

H.R. 6355—Providing ESA Timing Improvements That Increase 

Opportunities for Nonlisting (PETITION) Act of 2018 

The PETITION Act would establish a procedure through which the Secretary 

could declare ‘‘petition backlogs’’ for 90-day and 12-month findings. It would set 

guidelines and restrictions for the Secretary’s work on petitions during a backlog 

period, and would establish deadlines for completing review of listing and uplisting 

petitions. Additionally, it shields from judicial review any negative 90-day and 12- 

month findings for listing or uplisting petitions made due to the expiration of a 

deadline set in the bill. 

The Department appreciates and supports the goals of the PETITION Act to address the workload challenges associated with the petition process. And while we 

agree with the need to focus efforts on recovery and de-listing, we would like to 

work with the Committee to determine more appropriate deadlines that would not 

place additional constraints on the work of the agency. 

H.R. 6364—Localizing Authority of Management Plans (LAMP) Act of 2018 

The LAMP Act would authorize the Secretary to delegate to a state the authority 

to manage listed species in that state. It would also expand the existing authority 

for the Service to establish cooperative agreements with states to also cover agreements with groups of states, political subdivisions of states, Indian tribes, local 

governments, and non-Federal persons. 

15 

The Department appreciates and supports the goals of the LAMP Act to expand 

the role of state, local, and tribal governments, and individuals in implementing the 

ESA. The Department would like to work with the Committee on the practical application of this bill and the implications to the public. 

The LAMP Act would re-shape the relationship between the Services and nonFederal parties in conserving species under the ESA. By replacing the permitting 

authorities of the ESA that underlie existing voluntary conservation agreements 

with a straight-forward exemption from the take prohibitions under the ESA, we are 

uncertain how this would affect incidental take permitting and look forward to 

working with the bill’s sponsors to better understand their intent. Additionally, the 

provisions authorizing the Secretary to delegate ESA authorities to a state are silent 

with regard to the implementing regulations, policies, and procedural manuals that 

guide the details of implementing the Act across the country. As written, this language has the potential to authorize variable ESA implementation across the country, with different policies and procedures among states and between states and the 

Services. 

We welcome the opportunity to work with the Committee to further consider this 

legislation and develop provisions that could ensure consistent implementation 

among Federal and state agencies, and the states themselves. 

H.R. 6360—Permit Reassurances Enabling Direct Improvements for 

Conservation, Tenants, and Species (PREDICTS) Act of 2018 

The PREDICTS Act would codify certain Federal regulations that enable the development of HCPs, CCAAs, and SHAs. The bill would also authorize the Secretary 

to provide grants of up to $10,000 to assist qualifying landowners. 

The Department supports the PREDICTS Act, which would codify several important tools we use to incentivize voluntary conservation and provide regulatory predictability to non-Federal entities. We would, however, welcome the opportunity to 

work with the Committee to clarify the approval standard for CCAAs and SHAs to 

ensure that these plans continue to contribute to species recovery. 

H.R. 6346—Weigh Habitats Offsetting Locational Effects (WHOLE) Act of 

2018 

The WHOLE Act would require that when making a determination of whether a 

Federal action is likely to jeopardize a species, destroy, or adversely modify critical 

habitat, the Secretary must consider the offsetting effects of all avoidance, 

minimization, and conservation measures already in place or proposed to be implemented, including habitat conservation measures. 

The Department supports the WHOLE Act, which, with one exception, would codify processes already a part of long-standing practice and policy for Federal agency 

consultation under the ESA. That exception concerns determinations of the effect of 

Federal actions on designated critical habitat. The legislative language does not 

limit the offsetting measures to those carried out only within the designated critical 

habitat. The Department would welcome the opportunity to work with the 

Committee to improve that language. 

H.R. 6354—Stop Takings on Reserves Antithetical to Germane Encapsulation (STORAGE) Act of 2018 

The STORAGE Act would prohibit the Secretary from designating critical habitat 

for any area in a water storage reservoir, water diversion structure, canal, or other 

water storage, diversion, or delivery facility, where habitat is periodically created 

and destroyed as a result of changes in water levels caused by the operation of such 

facility. 

The Department supports the intent of the STORAGE Act. While it is current 

Service practice to not designate critical habitat within the operational pool of water 

storage reservoirs, if species presence is in direct conflict with the purposes of the 

facility, there are circumstances where operations and maintenance of conveyance 

facilities is compatible with the function of critical habitat. The Department would 

appreciate the opportunity to work with the Committee to refine the language in 

this legislation. 

H.R. 3608—Endangered Species Transparency and Reasonableness Act 

The Endangered Species Transparency and Reasonableness Act would require 

that data used in species listings be made publicly available and that all data used 

shall be provided to states in advance of listing determination. It broadens the definition of ‘‘best scientific and commercial information available’’ to include data provided by state, county, and tribal governments. It requires the Secretary to submit 

a report to Congress and make public any expenditures related to litigation. 

Additionally, the bill would cap attorney’s fees to prevailing parties in ESA citizen 

16 

suites at $125 per hour, consistent with current Federal law governing other actions 

against the United States. 

The Department has worked to address concerns regarding transparency of the 

data used to make listing determinations. As in previous testimony by this Administration, the Department would recommend modifying this legislation to require the 

Service to consider all data submitted by states, tribes, and local governments, rather than automatically deeming that data to be the ‘‘best scientific and commercial 

data available’’ as currently required in the bill. Defining that term to automatically 

include data submitted by states, tribes, and counties, without regard to its quality, 

would be a significant departure from scientific integrity standards. 

Also as stated in previous testimony by this Administration, this legislation would 

in effect limit attorneys’ fees for successful citizen plaintiffs in ESA cases against 

the Federal Government. The time and cost of litigation is one of the significant 

challenges we face in implementing the ESA. As currently drafted, it is unclear 

whether the legislation would require that all prevailing fee awards be paid through 

annual appropriations, rather than having the option to pay through the Judgment 

Fund as is the case under current law. The Department would welcome the opportunity to work with the Committee to clarify this aspect of the legislation. 

CONCLUSION

The Department recognizes our shared interest in modernizing the ESA and 

making it work for wildlife and the American people. We appreciate the Committee’s 

attention to this effort. We support the goals of improving the ESA through cooperative federalism, public-private partnerships, market-based solutions, utilization of 

the best available science, and effective, sensible regulations. We welcome the opportunity to work with the Committee to address some technical modifications to the 

proposed legislation. The Department is committed to making the ESA as efficient, 

predictable and effective as possible in accomplishing its purpose of conserving 

threatened and endangered species and protecting the ecosystems upon which they 

depend. While the ESA has had some success since its passage over 40 years ago, 

there are greater opportunities ahead. The Department looks forward to working 

with the Committee to address these and other legislative efforts to improve the 

ESA. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that. 

To our other witnesses, let me try to explain what we are trying 

to do here. There are nine bills. If you wish to address all nine bills 

in the first 5 minutes, we can do that. Then we will come back with 

specifics afterwards, as we go through them, bill by bill. Or, if you 

want to just speak on the bills for which you want to speak about, 

and not the others, we can do that at the same time. So, I give you 

that option, whether you want to comment on all of them at once, 

or just on this specific one. 

But we are going to talk, first of all, about the Tipton bill. We 

will ask questions about the Tipton bill before we go to the others. 

So, with that, Mr. Johansson. 

STATEMENT OF JAMIE JOHANSSON, PRESIDENT, CALIFORNIA 

FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. JOHANSSON. Thank you, Chairman Bishop and Ranking 

Member Grijalva, for the opportunity to testify before you from the 

American Farm Bureau. I am Jamie Johansson. I am president of 

the California Farm Bureau Federation. We represent more than 

39,000 members across 56 counties, contributing the largest 

agricultural economy of any state in the Nation. 

Our farmers and ranchers provide food, fiber, and feed to our 

local communities, the Nation, and across the globe. In California, 

battles over everything from spotted owls to delta smelt have reshaped our rural communities and, sadly, have created tremendous 

17 

industries of conflict. All this with little to show in the way of improvements for the species. 

This culture of conflict and lack of success is evidence that conservation is at a crossroads. We can either continue down the path 

of escalating conflict and seemingly endless cycles of listings and 

lawsuits, or we can take a long, hard look at what the past 45 

years of implementing the Endangered Species Act can teach us, as 

we strive to make the ESA work better. 

The law could be better for species, whether listed or unlisted. 

And better for people, whether farmer or conservationist. There are 

three reasons this is the case. 

First, we all value protecting species from extinction. Our disagreements are not about the goals of species protection, but the 

best way to achieve that goal. 

Second, there is widespread acknowledgment that ESA can be 

improved to work better for species and people. 

Third, the key to the ESA working better is improving opportunities for collaborative conservation by reducing conflict and increasing regulatory certainty. The bills under deliberation today move in 

the direction of bringing regulatory certainty. 

Regarding my first point, I wish to state that we are not here to 

question the Act’s fundamental goal of striving to conserve species 

from extinction. This goal will not and should not change. What we 

grapple with today is not whether we should conserve species from 

extinction, but how we should conserve species from extinction. 

To expand on my second point, I believe that there is widespread 

acknowledgment that the ESA could work better for both species 

and people. Though everyone may not state it precisely that way, 

if you look at how the issue is discussed, the conservation groups 

are increasingly acknowledging the need to take care of landowners 

who are well positioned to help species. 

Meanwhile, farmers and ranchers believe they need to take care 

of the species if we want to continue to take care of our future. 

While we all may say it differently, there is a common message 

that the ESA can and should be functioning more effectively for 

both species and people. 

This leads me to my third point, and the principal reason I am 

here today. I believe that if the ESA is to work better for species, 

it must work better for people. This is the reason for your convening today to consider legislation that could provide improvements in areas where the existing law has created unnecessary and 

unproductive conflict. What we know is that to actually take care 

of species on the land, we need to work together, not against the 

people on the land. For this to happen, we must increase the opportunities for collaboration and decrease the opportunities for 

conflict. 

Currently, landowners view the ESA as a threat. The history of 

the ESA has generally shown landowners that having species or 

habitat on their land creates a lot of risk, and provides no real benefit. Given that half of listed species spend 80 percent of their lives 

on private land, this situation offers little opportunity for people or 

species. 

Under the current regulatory climate, the ESA disincentivizes 

landowners from protecting and growing habitat. We can all agree 

18 

that rational landowners should do everything they can to reduce 

their risk by minimizing habitat or species on their land. Despite 

this hard logic, I am proud to say that farmers and ranchers are 

good stewards, and generally accept that risk. 

But escalating conflicts and expanding lists of endangered and 

threatened species are consistently straining the situation now. 

Now is the time to focus on improvements to the ESA that will encourage collaborative conservation by reducing conflict and improving regulatory certainty. 

We appreciate the Committee’s hard work to identify aspects of 

the ESA that can be improved, and offer the American Farm 

Bureau Federation’s support for the measures being considered before the Committee today. 

Ideas to prioritize petitions, improve transparency of data and 

litigation, and provide greater opportunity for state and local governments to participate in management of species are ideas that 

have been discussed in many forms, and are concepts also included 

in Senator Barrasso’s discussion draft of the Endangered Species 

Act Amendments of 2018. 

As the legislative efforts move forward in the House and Senate, 

we emphasize the importance of incorporating the breadth of perspectives into the process in order to develop viable and durable solutions that will result in long-term, meaningful improvements to 

the Endangered Species Act. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johansson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMIE JOHANSSON, PRESIDENT, CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU

FEDERATION ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION ON

H.R. 6344, H.R. 6360, H.R. 6346, H.R. 6354, H.R. 6345, H.R. 3608. H.R. 6364, 

H.R. 6356, AND H.R. 6355 

Thank you, Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva for the opportunity 

to testify. I am Jamie Johansson, President of the California Farm Bureau 

Federation. We represent more than 39,000 members across 56 counties contributing the largest agricultural economy of any state in the Nation. Our farmers and 

ranchers provide food, fiber, and feed to our local communities, to the Nation, and 

across the globe. 

In California, battles over everything from spotted owls to delta smelt have reshaped rural communities, and sadly, have created tremendous industries of 

conflict. All this with little to show in the way of improvements for the species. 

This culture of conflict and lack of success is evidence that conservation is at a 

crossroads. We can either continue down the path of escalating conflict and seemingly endless cycles of listings and lawsuits, or we can take a long hard look at what 

the past 45 years of implementing the Endangered Species Act (ESA or ‘‘the Act’’) 

can teach us as we strive to make the ESA work better. The law can be better for 

species, whether listed or unlisted, and better for people, whether farmer or 

conservationist. 

There are three reasons this is the case. 

First, we all value protecting species from extinction. Our disagreements are not 

about the goal of species protection, but the best way to achieve that goal. 

Second, there is widespread acknowledgement that the ESA can be improved to 

work better for species and people. 

Third, the key to the ESA working better is improving opportunities for collaborative conservation by reducing conflict and increasing regulatory certainty. The 

bills under deliberation today move in the direction of bringing regulatory certainty. 

Regarding my first point, I wish to state that we are not here to question the Act’s 

fundamental goal of striving to conserve species from extinction. This goal will not 

and should not change. What we grapple with today is not whether we should conserve species from extinction, but how we should conserve species from extinction. 

19 

1 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, ‘‘Our Endangered Species Program and How It Works With 

Landowners,’’ 2009. https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/landowners.pdf. 

To expand on my second point. I believe that there is widespread acknowledgement that the ESA could work better for both species and people. Though everyone 

may not state it precisely that way, if you look at how the issue is discussed, the 

conservation groups are increasingly acknowledging the need to take care of landowners who are well positioned to help species. Meanwhile, farmers and ranchers 

believe they need to take care of the species if we want to take care of our future. 

While we all may say it differently, there is a common message that the ESA can 

and should be functioning more effectively for both species and people. 

This convergence of messages from what traditionally has been sparring groups, 

was perhaps best reflected in the Western Governors’ Association’s ‘‘Initiative on 

Species Conservation and the Endangered Species Act.’’ This thorough and inclusive 

process, in which Farm Bureau was an active participant, brought together stakeholders on all sides of the issue. The initiative involved several years exploring ideas 

‘‘for improving the efficacy of the Endangered Species Act,’’ and included all manner 

of positions and viewpoints. A common theme was that improvements could, and 

should, be made. 

This leads me to my third point, and the principle reason I am here today. I 

believe that if the ESA is to work better for species, it must work better for people. 

This is the reason for your convening today, to consider legislation that could provide improvements in areas where the existing law has created unnecessary and unproductive conflict. What we know is that to actually take care of species on the 

land, we need to work with, not against, the people on the land. For this to happen, 

we must increase the opportunities for collaboration and decrease the opportunities 

for conflict. 

Currently, landowners view the ESA as a threat. The history of the ESA has generally shown landowners that having species or habitat on their land creates a lot 

of risk and provides no real benefit. Given that half of listed species spend 80 

percent of their lives on private land, this situation offers little opportunity for 

people or species.1

Perhaps no species is more symbolic and perhaps symptomatic of the ESA’s 

challenges than the northern spotted owl. Listed as threatened in 1990, this listing 

kicked off the timber wars that reshaped the Pacific Northwest and the ESA. 

Thriving rural communities lost a significant portion of their economic base because 

of the costs and restrictions placed on timber harvest. As much as any other species, 

the spotted owl proved to landowners that endangered species and their habitat 

were major hazards to be avoided at all costs. 

All this, and yet the spotted owl is still not doing well. The primary threat now 

appears to be the barred owl—a species that over the past century has expanded 

its range from the east, outcompeting, breeding, and killing the spotted owl. 

In sum, the listing harmed our rural communities. The ensuing battles 

weaponized the Endangered Species Act and led to the creation of a massive industry of conflict. This resulted in turning the ESA into a feared threat to landowners. 

Currently, the spotted owl is worse off than ever. 

Several more examples illustrate the very real conflicts in California, both those 

experienced in the past and problems we anticipate in the future. 

DELTA SMELT: A FAILED SYSTEM

Another example of extraordinary harm, without commensurate benefit, is the 

crippling effect litigation over the delta smelt has had on California’s water system. 

Questionable science has focused regulatory controls on California’s state and 

Federal water projects because this is the easiest ‘‘knob’’ the regulators have had 

to turn. Litigation-focused advocacy groups have also turned the smelt into a 

nuclear weapon in court to further their own narrow agenda. 

The real causes of the smelt’s decline, however, are much more complex than just 

the state and Federal projects. In fact, one of the biggest causes appears to be an 

invasive clam that has wiped out the smelt’s primary food supply. While there’s not 

a lot we can do about the clams, the best science today suggests that any threat 

from the projects can be managed without eliminating the water supply to cities and 

farms. Working with water users and landowners to improve habitat and food 

supply are the more effective ‘‘knobs’’ we should be turning. 

SALMON: LOST OPPORTUNITY

In Northern California, farmers and ranchers worked for decades to make 

improvements beneficial to salmon and steelhead. Millions have been invested in 

20 

putting in fish screens to prevent juvenile salmon from being pulled into water diversions. Significant amounts of water historically used for irrigation and municipal 

supply have flowed through the California Bay Delta and out to sea in an effort to 

improve the survival of salmon. However, these efforts have not had the intended 

effect of increasing salmon populations. Instead, we are finding that collaborative 

efforts to allow juvenile salmon to spend time in flooded rice fields are having a 

much better effect than simply keeping more water in our river systems. This is yet 

another example of the need for collaboration rather than conflict. 

Elsewhere in the battles over salmon, farmers and ranchers sought to work with 

local, state and Federal agencies to implement a small-scale supplementation program. The constraints of the ESA and bureaucratic reluctance to engage in supplementation (it is out of fashion in the latest conservation thinking) resulted in the 

project going nowhere. This reinforced in the minds of farmers and ranchers that 

the real motivations are something other than actually helping species. 

SMALL SUCCESS IN COLLABORATIVE CONSERVATION ON WORKING LANDS

There are positive examples of collaboration on working lands during the last two 

administrations. The Bush administration promulgated 4(d) rules that exempt routine ranching activities from the prohibitions of the Act for the California Tiger 

Salamander and California Red Legged Frog. In both examples, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) recognized that ranches provided the bulk of habitat for 

these species. They saw that continued ranching was more beneficial to the species 

than preventing the possible deaths of a few critters and potentially driving 

ranchers to sell for development or switch to more profitable crops. 

Another successful example of collaboration came during the Obama administration when the Modoc Sucker (a small fish) was de-listed after extensive work 

between the agency and ranchers in Modoc and Lassen to improve habitat. 

Unfortunately, these positive stories are more aberration than opportunity under 

the current ESA, as there are few examples that have worked for both people and 

species. The fact is that very limited circumstances have proven just right enough 

to fit the narrow opportunities currently provided for in the ESA. 

MONARCH BUTTERFLY: A PROMISING FUTURE MODEL

While the spotted owl and delta smelt are stories of how the ESA has failed 

people and species, the monarch butterfly could shape how we approach conservation in the future. The USFWS received a petition to list the monarch in 2014 and 

agreed pursuant to a settlement to make a listing decision by June 2019. 

We are striving hard, as are many conservation groups, to find solutions that 

work for species and people. While we believe the solutions to improve habitat are 

feasible, it is clear the ESA is not flexible enough to ensure that those proactive 

collaborative conservation efforts are not derailed by litigation. 

As we address the monarch butterfly, we have a question before us. Will we continue to allow the ESA to be about conflict, or can we work together to create a path 

toward conservation that works for species and people? 

GOOD STEWARDS

Under the current regulatory climate, the ESA disincentivizes landowners from 

protecting and growing habitat. We can all agree that rational landowners should 

do everything they can to reduce their risks by minimizing habitat or species on 

their land. Despite this hard logic, I am proud to say that farmers and ranchers 

are good stewards and generally accept the risk. But escalating conflicts and 

expanding lists of endangered and threatened species are consistently straining this 

situation. Now is the time to focus on improvements to the ESA that will encourage 

collaborative conservation by reducing conflict and improving regulatory certainty. 

In order for any landowner to work collaboratively to conserve the species, they 

need to know at the start what will be expected of them, and they must be confident 

the rules are not going to change once they are in. 

Several provisions before the Committee today recognize this point. Providing incentives and regulatory assurances to landowners—topics in the LOCAL Act, 

H.R. 6344, the LAMP Act, H.R. 6364, and the PREDICTS Act, H.R. 6360—are two 

of the elements necessary to providing landowners with the real opportunity to 

engage in collaborative conservation. For future success in species conservation, it 

is important to recognize the costs of implementing conservation on the land for 

farmers and ranchers. And it is important to recognize farmers’ and ranchers’ need 

for regulatory certainty. 

21 

2 H.R. 6355. 

3 H.R. 3608. 

4 H.R. 6345, H.R. 6364. 

CONCLUSION

As the Committee considers legislation intended to improve the efficacy and efficiency of the ESA, we stand at a crossroads in conservation. No one is suggesting 

we should turn back. Rather, we are now choosing on which path to move forward. 

To do nothing is to reject decades of lessons from applied conservation and continue 

down the path of conflict-based environmentalism that developed in the 20th 

century, failing species and people alike. We have another, better option. We can 

take a hard look at the lessons we have learned about conservation and forge a path 

toward conservation in the 21st century that works with our farmers and ranchers 

and not against them. 

We appreciate the Committee’s hard work to identify aspects of the ESA that can 

be improved and offer the American Farm Bureau Federation’s support for the 

measures being considered before the Committee today. Ideas to prioritize petitions,2 improve transparency of data and litigation,3 and provide greater opportunity for state and local governments to participate in management of species 4 are 

ideas that have been discussed in many forums, and are concepts also included in 

Senator Barrasso’s discussion draft of the Endangered Species Act Amendments of 

2018. As legislative efforts move forward in the House and Senate, we emphasize 

the importance of incorporating the breadth of perspectives into the process in order 

to develop viable and durable solutions that will result in long term, meaningful 

improvements to the Endangered Species Act. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

All right, Commissioner, go through the same thing. If you want 

to talk about all nine at first, or emphasize just the LOCAL Act, 

whichever you want to do. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID SAUTER, COUNTY COMMISSIONER, 

KLICKITAT COUNTY, LYLE, WASHINGTON 

Mr. SAUTER. Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and 

members of the Natural Resources Committee, on behalf of the 

National Association of Counties, thank you for your invitation to 

testify in support of your Endangered Species Act modernization 

package. Counties appreciate your work to ensure the ESA better 

protects species using the best scientific data, and cooperative efforts between the Federal and local governments. 

My name is David Sauter. I am in my third term as a Klickitat 

County, Washington Commissioner. Our is a rural county of about 

21,000 people, and bordered by the Gifford Pinchot National Forest 

and the Columbia River. I have lived there my entire life, and I 

have witnessed the detrimental impacts of ESA listings firsthand. 

Klickitat County historically relied on a resource-based economy 

of timber, agriculture, and fishing. However, over the past 20 

years, a major timber mill closed after the northern spotted owl 

listing, resulting in high unemployment and a shuttered community. Farmers and ranchers struggled to comply with management 

plans written without input of local experts. 

We need a new approach to conservation policies focused on good 

stewardship, without ignoring the needs of communities. We must 

modernize the ESA. 

We appreciate your work on these nine bills to guarantee ESA 

policies are based on the best scientific data with a maximum level 

of involvement from counties. My testimony will focus on three 

22 

bills, each of which will promote federalism and greater 

transparency: H.R. 6345, the EMPOWERS Act; H.R. 3608, the 

Endangered Species Transparency and Reasonableness Act; and 

H.R. 6364, the LAMP Act. 

The EMPOWERS Act would require Federal agencies to consult 

with states before making final listing decisions, and mandates 

Federal agencies explain when their decisions diverge from states’ 

advice. This bill will strengthen the role state and local governments play. 

We currently partner with Federal agencies in wildlife management and habitat conservation efforts. States and counties have 

adopted management plans which may include scientific data that 

can be used to benefit listed species. Collaboration will benefit 

species and create better policy outcomes. 

For example, the Oregon spotted frog was listed as threatened in 

2014. Critical habitat proposals included private lands within the 

Glenwood Valley. The Klickitat County responded to landowners’ 

concerns by convening meetings with Federal and state wildlife 

officials. Eventually, 20 landowners signed a cooperative agreement 

that was incorporated into the frog’s critical habitat. It was a winwin for all. Consultation creates strong relationships and local buyin. The EMPOWERS Act will ensure this level of consultation. 

ESA decisions often do not conform to the process under law, but 

instead are mandated by court decisions through the abuse of our 

legal system by special interest groups. These lawsuits may also require taxpayers to pay special interest legal fees. From 2002 to 

2017, the Department of the Interior entered into 96 separate 

settlements, paying $1.7 billion in legal fees. 

H.R. 3608 would require information on ESA lawsuits be avail- able online, and put in place the same $125-per-hour attorney’s 

fees caps for ESA suits as for suits under the Equal Access to 

Justice Act. 

Klickitat County is home to the most wind turbines in 

Washington State, accounting for nearly one-third of our tax base. 

Some of these capital-intensive projects were threatened with litigation. Most settled to maintain their tight construction schedules, 

but this legal threat can have a chilling effect on future developments. 

H.R. 3608 steers the ESA back to focus on good stewardship, not 

lawsuits. 

It also defines the term ‘‘best available scientific and commercial 

data’’ to include data provided by affected local governments. 

Counties have developed data to assist Federal agencies in species 

conservation plans. This bill would ensure this data is used when 

available. 

The LAMP Act would allow agencies to enter into cooperative 

agreements with local governments to improve species recovery and 

habitat management. Under the LAMP Act, the ESA would become 

a more collaborative conservation tool that welcomes the input of 

non-Federal partners. This bill ensures Federal support for locally 

driven solutions. County governments are partners to Federal 

agencies in implementing species conservation plans. Allowing 

these partnerships to flourish will lead to greater efficiencies and 

better outcomes. 

23 

Once again, thank you for holding today’s legislative hearing on 

the ESA. We must work in a bipartisan constructive manner to ensure that our approach to our shared objective of species recovery 

and habitat conservation is driven by coordination—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Time is expired. 

Mr. SAUTER. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sauter follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAVID SAUTER, COMMISSIONER, 

KLICKITAT COUNTY, WASHINGTON ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

COUNTIES ON H.R. 6345, H.R. 3608, AND H.R. 6364 

Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the U.S. House 

Committee on Natural Resources, on behalf of the National Association of Counties 

(NACo), thank you for your invitation to testify today in support of your efforts to 

modernize the Endangered Species Act (ESA). County governments appreciate the 

Committee’s efforts to ensure that this landmark conservation law better protects 

species and their habitat using the best available scientific data and cooperative 

efforts between the Federal Government and its intergovernmental partners, including local governments. 

My name is David Sauter, and I am serving my third term on the Klickitat 

County, Washington Board of Commissioners. Klickitat County is bordered by the 

Gifford Pinchot National Forest to the West and the Columbia River to the South. 

We are a rural county with a population of about 21,000 people. 

THE IMPORTANCE OF ESA MODERNIZATION TO COUNTIES

Klickitat County historically relied on a resource-based economy of timber harvests, ranching, farming and fishing. I have lived in the county my entire life and 

have witnessed the detrimental impacts of ESA listings firsthand. I have seen a 

prosperous, well-kept community demoralized and discouraged when its mill closed 

because of a lack of timber supply due to the listing of the Northern spotted owl— 

a mill that provided strong, middle class jobs for generations, the closure of which 

resulted in a blighted community with high unemployment and a reduced standard 

of living. I have witnessed farm and ranch families struggling to continue generations-old operations as they attempt to comply with resource management plans 

that were made without meaningful consultation of state and local expertise—the 

very people that are on the landscape and have direct, real-world experience with 

local issues. We need a new approach to species conservation policy that ensures 

good stewardship of resources without ignoring the voices and economic needs of 

local communities. This is why it is imperative that we modernize the ESA. 

The National Association of Counties, which represents America’s 3,069 counties, 

parishes and boroughs, has adopted into the American County Platform several 

goals for modernizing the ESA to ensure the legislation meets its mandate and 

serves as a strong part of our Nation’s conservation legacy. NACo’s platform specifically highlights the importance of the ESA, and further states: 

‘‘NACo supports reforming the ESA to mandate that the federal government 

treat state and county governments as cooperating agencies with full rights 

of coordination, cooperation, consultation and consistency to decide jointly 

with appropriate federal agencies when and how to list species, designate 

habitat and plan and manage for species recovery and de-listing.’’ 

As this language makes clear, American counties support the Committee’s efforts 

to modernize the ESA. We appreciate your leadership in developing common-sense 

bills that ensure the maximum level of involvement for county governments in ESA 

processes and that ESA policies are based on the best available scientific data. If 

enacted, the nine ESA modernization bills under consideration by the Committee 

would greatly improve how we protect species and conserve their habitat while 

assuring that our Nation’s resource management policies are built through a strong 

federal-state-local partnership. 

While counties hope to see all nine ESA modernization bills under consideration 

by the Committee (H.R. 6344, H.R. 6360, H.R. 6346, H.R. 6354, H.R. 6345, 

H.R. 3608, H.R. 6364, H.R. 6356 and H.R. 6355) enacted into law, my testimony 

will focus on three particularly important pieces of legislation to be considered by 

the Committee, each of which will promote federalism and greater transparency 

24 

1https:/ /www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so_3368_promoting_transparency_and_ 

accountability_in_consent_decrees_and_settlement_agreements.pdf. 

under the ESA: H.R. 6345, the EMPOWERS Act; H.R. 3608, the Endangered 

Species Transparency and Reasonableness Act; and H.R. 6364, the LAMP Act. 

H.R. 6345, EMPOWERS Act of 2018 

The Ensuring Meaningful Petition Outreach While Enhancing Rights of States 

(EMPOWERS) Act would require Federal agencies making listing decisions under 

the ESA to meaningfully consult with state governments before a listing determination is made. It also mandates Federal agencies provide an explanation when their 

decisions diverge from the findings or advice of a state government. 

County governments strongly support H.R. 6345 because it will strengthen the 

role that state governments and their political subsidiaries play in the ESA process. 

State game and fish departments assist the Federal Government in species and 

habitat conservation efforts. Further, states and many counties have adopted their 

own resource management plans (RMPs), which can provide existing, verifiable and 

scientific information that the Federal Government can use in its species, habitat 

or natural resource management plans. 

I can give you an example of where this approach has been very successful in my 

county: the Oregon spotted frog was listed as a threatened species under the ESA 

in 2014. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) initially proposed to include 

a large portion of the Glenwood Valley of Klickitat County, including private property, as the frog’s critical habitat. The residents and the county were highly concerned about the potential impacts that the designation would have on ranching and 

county road operations. To help address these concerns, our county government facilitated meetings between USFWS, the Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, and local ranching interests. It took considerable time and effort to build 

trust between the parties, but eventually these meetings culminated in an agreement that was signed by over 20 private landowners and was incorporated into the 

critical habitat designation in 2016. It was a win-win for all involved, especially the 

frogs. This example illustrates what can happen when Federal agencies trust their 

local partners and engage in meaningful consultation and dialogue before finalizing 

decisions. 

We want to thank Congressman Pearce for sponsoring this common-sense 

legislation that recognizes the need for the Federal Government to include state and 

local governing partners in developing the best possible species conservation 

policies. If Federal, state and local governments craft and implement resource management decisions in good faith, policies are more likely to be accepted by local residents, thus increasing the possibility of future intergovernmental cooperation on 

other important community issues. 

H.R. 3608, The Endangered Species Transparency and Reasonableness Act 

Too often, ESA decisions do not conform to the process spelled out under the ESA, 

but instead are mandated by court decisions forced on the Federal Government 

through the abuse of our legal system by special interest groups. To make matters 

worse, these lawsuits may require taxpayers to pay the legal fees of entities who 

sue on technical grounds to prevent common-sense, locally supported species and 

habitat management plans from being implemented. According to the U.S. Department of the Interior, from 2012 to 2017, the Federal Government entered into 96 

separate settlement agreements or consent decrees and paid out $1.7 billion in legal 

fees.1

This system needs to be fixed to prevent further abuse. This is why counties support H.R. 3608, the Endangered Species Transparency and Reasonableness Act, and 

urge its adoption by Congress. If enacted, this bill would require USFWS to track, 

report to Congress, and make available online information on ESA lawsuits and 

attorney payouts from those lawsuits. This bill would also put in place the same 

$125 per hour cap on attorney’s fees for suits filed under the ESA as for those filed 

under the Equal Access to Justice Act. 

I can give an example of why this is important: Klickitat County is home to large 

wind energy farms. We are proud to have the most wind turbines of any county in 

Washington State and third-most in the Nation behind a couple of counties in 

Texas. Wind projects now make up nearly one-third of the entire tax base of the 

county. These are very capital-intensive projects that are on tight construction 

schedules. Many of these projects were threatened with litigation by third parties 

and most paid out some form of settlement to maintain their construction schedules. 

Unfortunately, lawsuits have become a whole new industry in my county, holding 

up projects until a settlement can be extracted. This cycle of litigation and settleVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:14 Dec 18, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\115TH CONGRESS\FULL COMMITTEE\9-26-18\31631.TXT DARLEN
25 

ment is likely to have a chilling effect on the county’s flourishing and much-needed 

wind energy industry. Conservation policy should be based on good stewardship of 

the land, not profit incentives for special interests. Limiting opportunities to ‘‘sue 

and settle’’ represents a step in the right direction. 

Additionally, under current law, the science used to justify ESA listing decisions 

may not be publicly available. H.R. 3608 would address this issue by mandating 

Federal agencies to make publicly available the data used for ESA listing decisions 

and to make the data accessible through the Internet. The bill also requires the 

Federal Government to disclose to states all data justifying an ESA listing decision 

and defines the term ‘‘best available scientific and commercial data’’ to include data 

provided by affected states, tribes, and local governments. Species listings and recovery decisions should be based on the best available scientific data and consistent, 

reliable timelines. Counties have developed data that can assist our Federal partners in species conservation plans, and we encourage the Federal Government to 

use this data where available. 

H.R. 6364, LAMP Act of 2018 

The LAMP Act would allow the Federal Government to enter into cooperative 

management agreements with state and local governments, tribes and non-Federal 

stakeholders to improve endangered species recovery and habitat management. 

States with strong, scientific approaches to species conservation would also take the 

lead in species conservation efforts. Under the LAMP Act, the ESA would become 

a more collaborative conservation statute that welcomes the input and expertise of 

non-Federal governing partners for species and habitat protection. 

Counties support the adoption of H.R. 6364 because this legislation would 

empower county governments by ensuring Federal support for local management solutions. In a time of strained resources and manpower within the Federal Government, developing cooperative solutions to our environmental challenges can lead to 

greater efficiencies in decision making and improve long-term recovery. County 

governments have already served as partners to Federal agencies in implementing 

various species conservation plans and creating new opportunities for these partnerships to flourish will lead to better outcomes for communities and the environment. 

CONCLUSION

Once again, thank you, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and 

Committee members for holding today’s legislative hearing on the ESA. We must 

pull together and work in a bipartisan, constructive manner to ensure that our approach to the mutually shared objective of species recovery and protection is driven 

by coordination between Federal, state and local governments. We hope Congress 

acts on and the president signs all of the ESA modernization bills before the 

Committee and appreciate the opportunity to express counties’ support for these 

important efforts. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

All right, Mr. Dreher, apparently everyone is going through all 

nine, so go through all nine at first. You have 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT DREHER, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

CONSERVATION PROGRAMS AND GENERAL COUNSEL, 

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. DREHER. Good morning, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member 

Grijalva, and members of the Committee. My name is Bob Dreher, 

and I am Senior Vice President of Conservation Programs at 

Defenders of Wildlife, a national non-profit conservation organization dedicated to the protection of all native animals and plants in 

their natural communities. Thank you for inviting me here today 

to discuss the nine Western Caucus bills related to the Endangered 

Species Act that are before this Committee. 

My testimony draws on nearly four decades of experience in conservation law and policy, including service with the Federal 

Government as Associate Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

26 

Service, and as Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources for the Department of Justice. I have 

represented and advised business clients, state governments, 

tribes, and environmental groups on environmental matters, and 

taught Federal natural resources law for almost two decades. 

Thanks to the visionary goals and flexible framework Congress 

established when it passed the Endangered Species Act in 1973, 

the ESA is the world’s most effective law for protecting wildlife in 

danger of extinction. In its 45-year history, only 11 species of the 

more than 1,600 on the list have been declared extinct. That is, in 

itself, a cause for celebration. 

But the Act has also contributed to the recovery of 54 species, 

including iconic species such as the bald eagle, brown pelican, 

humpback whale, and the American alligator. And many more 

species have been set on a path to recovery. 

The ESA is effective because it requires that decisions under the 

law be based on the best available science, not politics. It has been 

improved by continuous administrative reforms that have made the 

ESA work better, both for imperiled species and for stakeholders 

affected by its provisions. And the ESA, like many of our bedrock 

environmental and civil rights statutes, gives individual citizens 

the right to hold agencies accountable for complying with the law. 

Simply put, the ESA works. And it is a good thing it does, because the need for a strong ESA is greater than ever. Humanity 

is confronted with a global extinction crisis of epic proportions. In 

the last 40 years, we have lost half of all wild animals on Earth. 

Extinction is happening at a pace at least 100 times greater than 

what would be considered normal. 

During this biological crisis, what is most needed to improve 

ESA’s effectiveness is to fully fund it. Rather than change the 

structure of this successful law, Congress should reaffirm our 

national commitment to protecting our biodiversity heritage, and 

provide the funding necessary for the ESA to realize its full 

potential. 

Unfortunately, the legislation being considered today does nothing to improve the ESA, and many things to weaken it. The bills 

would gut the ESA’s science-based listing process by mandating reliance on any information, apparently even erroneous or irrelevant 

data submitted by states and counties. They would create arbitrary 

barriers to listing species, including prioritizing de-listing of species 

at the expense of species that may face imminent extinction. 

One bill would even allow states and counties to effectively veto 

decisions to list species, barring the Secretary from acting unless 

he can prove that information submitted by such governments is 

incorrect, regardless if it is sufficient to outweigh the scientific evidence showing the need to list. 

Another bill would allow the Secretary to delegate management 

of endangered species to states, which often lack legal authority or 

resources to conserve imperiled species effectively. More than that, 

the Secretary could delegate management of endangered species to 

local governments, corporations, or private individuals, undermining both Federal and state authorities over wildlife. 

Other bills would limit designation of critical habitat; force the 

government to pay landowners to comply with the ESA, which 

27 

would swiftly bankrupt the ESA program; and set time limits that 

automatically approve projects that may take species. 

Several bills undermine the rule of law by excluding agency decisions from judicial review. Although not all decisions, I would note, 

since these manifestly partisan bills typically preclude citizens 

from challenging decisions not to protect species, while allowing 

landowners and industry full rights to challenge decisions to protect them. 

I have addressed each of these bills in more detail in my written 

testimony. Taken together, however, the Western Caucus bills are 

a prescription for extinction. None of these bills would improve 

species conservation. Each would undermine, sometimes dramatically, the ESA and the fundamental commitment of our Nation to 

conserve and recover imperiled species. 

On behalf of Defenders of Wildlife and our 1.8 million members 

and supporters, I strongly urge this Committee to reject these dangerous bills. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to 

answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dreher follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT G. DREHER, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF

CONSERVATION PROGRAMS, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE ON H.R. 3608, H.R. 6344, 

H.R. 6345, H.R. 6346, H.R. 6354, H.R. 6355, H.R. 6356, H.R. 6360, AND

H.R. 6364 

Good morning Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the 

Committee. My name is Bob Dreher and I am Senior Vice President of Conservation 

Programs at Defenders of Wildlife (Defenders), a national non-profit conservation organization dedicated to the protection of all native animals and plants in their 

natural communities. For 70 years, Defenders has protected and restored imperiled 

species throughout North America by establishing on the ground programs at the 

state and local level; securing and improving state, national, and international policies that protect species and their habitats; and upholding legal safeguards for 

native wildlife in the courts. We represent more than 1.8 million members and 

supporters. 

Before joining Defenders in June 2016, I served as Associate Director of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, serving as the primary policy advisor for the Director. 

Prior to that, I served in the Department of Justice as Principal Deputy Assistant 

Attorney General and Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and 

Natural Resources Division, and previously served during the Clinton administration as Deputy General Counsel of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. I 

have spent my career in conservation law, having represented business clients in 

private practice and conservation organizations as managing attorney for the 

Washington, DC office of the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund (now Earthjustice). 

I also taught Federal natural resources law as an adjunct professor for almost 20 

years at George Washington University Law School and Georgetown University Law 

Center. 

Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the nine Western Caucus bills 

related to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that are before this Committee. I welcome the opportunity to speak about conserving imperiled wildlife under the ESA 

and the negative impact these bills would have on that important work. 

As I will describe in detail, the bills before this Committee today would undermine key provisions of the ESA and result in increased harm to protected species 

and their habitat. The bills would gut the ESA’s science-centered listing process by 

mandating reliance on any information provided by state and local governments. 

They would create arbitrary barriers to listing species, including prioritizing delisting species at the expense of species that may face imminent extinction; one bill 

would even allow states and county governments to effectively veto decisions to list 

species. Other bills would limit designation of critical habitat, force the government 

to pay landowners to comply with the ESA, and undermine the rule of law by excluding agency decisions from judicial review. One bill would allow the Secretary to 

28 

1 16 U.S.C. § 1531(a)(1). 

2 Id. § 1531(a)(3). 3 Id. § 1531(b). 4 Id. 

5 Id. § 1532(3). 6Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 184 (1978). 7 Id. at 180. 8 16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)(1). 

9 Id. § 1533(a)(1)(A). 10 Id. § 1533(a)(3)(A), (a)(3)(A)(i). 11 Id. § 1538(a)(1)(B). 12 Id. § 1536(a)(1). 13 Id. § 1536(a)(2). 14 Id. § 1536(a)(2). 

delegate management of endangered species to local governments, corporations or 

private individuals, undermining both Federal and state authorities over wildlife. 

Taken together, the Western Caucus bills are a prescription for extinction. Rather 

than adopt any of these proposals, Congress should reaffirm our national commitment to protecting our biodiversity heritage for current and future generations. 

THE ESA: A COMMITMENT WORTH KEEPING

Congress passed the ESA in 1973 out of a growing realization that our natural 

heritage was in peril and needed to be preserved. In section 2 of the law, Congress 

declared ‘‘various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States have been 

rendered extinct as a consequence of economic growth and development untempered 

by adequate concern and conservation.’’ 1 Congress further recognized that many 

more species were in danger of extinction and that ‘‘these species of fish, wildlife, 

and plants are of esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and 

scientific value to the Nation and its people.’’ 2

With these values in mind, Congress set forth an ambitious goal. The ESA would 

not only address actions directed at species themselves—such as hunting and 

trade—but also would ‘‘provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved.’’ 3 Congress also 

pledged to ‘‘take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the 

treaties and conventions’’ under which our Nation had pledged to the world that we 

would conserve threatened and endangered species.4

The commitment we made as a Nation in enacting the ESA is embodied in its 

definition of conservation, which is ‘‘the use of all methods and procedures which 

are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at 

which the measures provided pursuant to this chapter are no longer necessary.’’ 5

As the Supreme Court has recognized, the ‘‘plain intent of Congress’’ in enacting the 

ESA ‘‘was to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost. 

This is reflected not only in the stated policies of the ESA, but in literally every 

section of the statute.’’ 6 The result is ‘‘the most comprehensive legislation for the 

preservation of endangered species enacted by any nation.’’ 7

The ESA works by establishing a framework for the conservation of imperiled 

species, with specific management actions left to the scientific judgment of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service (Services or 

Service). First, the appropriate Service determines whether a species warrants listing as ‘‘threatened’’ or ‘‘endangered.’’ 8 In making this determination, the first factor 

the Service considers is ‘‘the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range.’’ 9 Consistent with Congress’ emphasis on habitat 

preservation, the Service must also at the time of listing and ‘‘to the maximum extent prudent and determinable’’ designate ‘‘any habitat of such species which is then 

considered to be critical habitat.’’ 10

Once a species is listed, a series of substantive and procedural requirements 

attach. While section 9 prohibits ‘‘take’’ of endangered species without prior authorization,11 section 7(a)(1) imposes on Federal agencies a substantive obligation to promote the conservation of listed species.12 Moreover, section 7(a)(2) obligates Federal 

agencies to consult with the Service whenever they act, authorize, or fund a project 

that may affect a listed species or its designated critical habitat.13 Through consultation, Federal agencies must ensure that their actions will not ‘‘jeopardize the 

continued existence’’ of a listed species or ‘‘result in the destruction or adverse 

modification’’ of critical habitat.14 This consultation process is designed to lessen the 

impact of Federal or federally permitted activities on species and their critical 

habitats. 

Section 7 consultation protects species while allowing most development projects 

to proceed with no more than minor modifications. Defenders of Wildlife examined 

29 

15 Jacob W. Malcom & Ya-Wei Li, Data Contradict Common Perceptions About A Controversial 

Provision of the U.S. Endangered Species Act, 112 PNAS 15844, 15848 (2015), https:// 

defenders.org/publications/section-7-pnas.pdf. 16 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., Delisted Species, https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/reports/delistingreport. 17 Id. 18Daniel M. Evans et al., Species Recovery in the United States: Increasing the Effectiveness 

of the Endangered Species Act, Issues in Ecology, Winter 2016, at 1. 19Misti Crane, Most Americans Support Endangered Species Act Despite Increasing Efforts to 

Curtail It, Ohio State News, July 19, 2018, https://news.osu.edu/most-americans-supportendangered-species-act-despite-increasing-efforts-to-curtail-it/; Jeremy T. Bruskotter et al., 

Support for the U.S. Endangered Species Act Over Time and Space: Controversial Species Do 

Not Weaken Public Support for Protective Legislation, Conservation Letters, e12595 (2018), 

https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12595. 20Tulchin Research, Poll Finds Overwhelming, Broad-Based Support for the Endangered 

Species Act Among Voters Nationwide, July 6, 2015, http://www.defenders.org/publications/ 

Defenders-of-Wildlife-National-ESA-Survey.pdf; Hart Research Associates, CAP Energy/ 

Continued 

every section 7 consultation recorded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service between 

January 2008 and April 2015, and in that time not one project had been stopped 

or extensively altered as a result of a finding of jeopardy to a species or adverse 

modification of critical habitat.15 Our research proves that consultation does not in 

theory or practice hamstring private development. To the contrary, it advances the 

ESA’s recovery goals by striking a science-driven balance between conservation and 

economic activity. 

THE ESA IS A PROVEN SUCCESS

Thanks to the visionary goals and flexible framework Congress established, the 

ESA is the world’s most effective law for protecting wildlife in danger of extinction. 

A remarkable 99 percent of species have survived since being listed. In its 45-year 

history only 11 listed species have been officially declared extinct.16 That in itself 

is a cause for celebration. 

The total number of ESA de-listings due to recovery is now 54, with 28 of those 

overseen by the Obama administration.17 More recoveries were declared under the 

Obama administration’s watch than all past administrations combined, not because 

that administration was necessarily more committed to the ESA than prior administrations but because recovery of species takes time. We have achieved dramatic successes through decades of effort with species like the bald eagle, brown pelican, 

humpback whale, black-capped vireo, the Louisiana black bear, and the Steller sea 

lion, all of which have recovered to the point where they no longer require Federal 

protection. But an equal measure of the ESA’s success may be the many more 

species that have been set on a path to recovery, including the iconic grizzly bear, 

the whooping crane, and the Florida manatee.18 With adequate resources and commitment, the ESA can save these and other imperiled species. 

The ESA has been effective because it requires that decisions under the law be 

based on the best scientific data available—not politics. It has been improved by 

continuous administrative reforms that have made the ESA work better both for 

imperiled species and for stakeholders affected by its provisions. From habitat conservation planning to candidate conservation agreements with assurances that provide regulatory certainty to landowners, the Services have taken advantage of the 

ESA’s inherent flexibility to find win-win solutions. The ESA has also been successful because, like many of our most important environmental and civil rights statutes, it gives individual citizens the right to hold agencies accountable for complying 

with the law. 

Put simply, the ESA works. What is most needed now to improve the ESA’s 

effectiveness is to fully fund it. To clear the backlog of species that require listing 

decisions, develop recovery plans, and work with stakeholders to promote conservation, the Services must have the necessary resources to achieve the ESA’s visionary 

purposes and goals. Rather than change the structure of this successful law, 

Congress should provide the funding necessary for the ESA to realize its full 

potential. 

Given its visionary purpose and numerous success stories, it should come as no 

surprise that the ESA also is broadly popular with the American people. Recently 

published peer-reviewed research from Ohio State University found that roughly 

four out of five Americans support the ESA.19 Previous studies by Hart Research 

in 2016 and Tulchin Research in 2015 found similar results; between 80 and 90 

percent of Americans supported the ESA and agree that saving at-risk wildlife from 

going extinct is an important goal for the Federal Government.20

30 

Environment/Climate Voters Survey, Dec. 2016, https://cdn.americanprogress.org/content/ 

uploads/2017/01/18040011/FI-CAP-Energy-Enviro-Dec2016.pdf. 21See, e.g., Stuart L. Pimm et al., The Biodiversity of Species and Their Rates of Extinction, 

Distribution, and Protection, 344 Science 987 (2014); David S. Wilcove et al., Quantifying 

Threats to Imperiled Species in the United States, 48 Am. Inst. Bio. Sciences 607 (1998); 

National Research Council, Science and the Endangered Species Act 72 (1995), https:// 

www.nap.edu/read/4978/chapter/6#72 (‘‘[T]here is no disagreement in the ecological literature 

about one fundamental relationship: sufficient loss of habitat will lead to species extinction.’’). 22Gerardo Ceballos, Paul R. Ehrlich, and Rodolfo Dirzo, Biological Annihilation Via the 

Ongoing Sixth Mass Extinction Signaled By Vertebrate Population Losses and Declines, PNAS 

E6089–E6096 (July 10, 2017), http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/114/30/E6089.full.pdf. 23 Id. 24 Elizabeth Kolbert, The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History 167–68 (2014); see also 

Daniel A. Farber, Separated at Birth? Addressing the Twin Crises of Biodiversity and Climate 

Change, 42 Ecology L.Q. 841, 846 (2016) (noting that climate change will exacerbate biodiversity 

loss). 25 Edward O. Wilson, Biophilia 121 (1984). 26 H.R. Rep. 93–412, pp. 4–5 (1973). 

THE SIXTH MASS EXTINCTION

Unfortunately, the need for a strong ESA is greater than ever. Despite significant 

efforts to prevent extinction, the loss of biodiversity, driven largely by habitat degradation and destruction, remains a rapidly growing problem.21 Climate change and 

ocean acidification, which were barely on the radar when the ESA was written, are 

only exacerbating the trend. 

The result is a global extinction crisis of epic proportion, in which half of all 

species could be facing extinction by the end of the century. In a 2017 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers found 

that of the 27,600 land-based mammals, birds, amphibians and reptile species studied, nearly one-third are shrinking in population numbers and territorial ranges.22

Even more startling, in just the last 40 years, we have lost half of all wild animals 

on Earth.23 That is a sobering statistic. Further, the rate of extinction is happening 

at a pace at least 100 times greater than what would be considered normal. 

Scientists estimate that by 2050, well within our children’s lifetime, 10 percent of 

all terrestrial species will be ‘‘committed to extinction.’’ 24

This is what scientists now call the Sixth Extinction. Unlike previous extinction 

events, it is largely being caused by man himself. Faced with the impact of our own 

hands on the diversity of life, we have a responsibility to ourselves, to our children 

and to the planet itself to act. As famed scientist E.O. Wilson has said, ‘‘The one 

process now going on that will take millions of years to correct is the loss of genetic 

and species diversity by the destruction of natural habitats. This is the folly our descendants are least likely to forgive us.’’ 25 It is up to us to halt and reverse this 

damage to the web of life. 

Biodiversity decline is the proverbial canary in the coal mine, a symbol of what 

we are doing to the Earth. And what befalls the Earth ultimately will come back 

to haunt us. As Congress once understood, there are many reasons to be alarmed 

about the loss of biodiversity, not the least of which is its ultimate impact on humans. Threatened and endangered species provide tangible services and benefits to 

people, playing important roles in providing us with clean water, food, medicines 

and more. Beyond such material benefits, species have intangible existence and spiritual value. The value of Earth’s biodiversity ‘‘is, quite literally, incalculable,’’ the 

House Report for the ESA stated back in 1973. ‘‘Sheer self-interest impels us to be 

cautious.’’ 26

THE WESTERN CAUCUS BILLS WOULD CRIPPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION

So why, when the need for conservation and concern for our future is greater than 

ever, is this Committee considering a suite of bills that would, each in its own way, 

undermine the ESA and cripple our efforts to conserve endangered species? If we 

are to avert this looming extinction crisis we should strengthen the laws and policies, especially the ESA, that protect imperiled species and their habitat. But these 

bills would do just the opposite. While some of these proposals are solutions looking 

for a problem, others are direct attacks on the very foundations of the ESA. 

Despite their superficially attractive yet often Orwellian acronyms (like the 

LOCAL Act or the EMPOWERS Act), not one of these bills would enhance the conservation of endangered species in this country or stimulate their recovery. Rather, 

they would undermine sound science-based decision making, create unnecessary 

barriers to the listing of species, weaken protections against take, exempt areas 

from critical habitat designation, decrease opportunities for public participation, and 

increase burdens on already fiscally-strapped wildlife agencies. Overall, these bills 

31 

27See, e.g., Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005); Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. New 

York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978). 

would take a wrecking ball to the ESA, and all to benefit a minority of special 

interests in a few western states. 

H.R. 3608: Endangered Species Transparency and Reasonableness Act of 

2018 

This bill would subvert the ESA’s bedrock requirement that listing decisions be 

based on sound science by simply declaring that all information submitted by state, 

tribal or county governments must be considered as the best scientific and commercial data available, irrespective of its actual merit. The ESA already encourages 

governments to submit information that may aid the Services in making listing decisions. That information is assessed, like any other, for its accuracy and reliability. 

Under this provision, information of any quality provided by state, tribal, and 

county governments—even data that are flatly wrong—would be presumed equivalent, if not superior, to peer-reviewed research from leading species experts. Adding 

an additional burden, the bill requires the Services to make information that served 

as the basis for listing and critical habitat determinations publicly available online, 

but it exempts information that is subject to state privacy laws. This exemption 

could undermine transparency and encourage states to pass laws shielding commercial data from public inspection to appease special interests. 

Notably, the bill also targets citizen enforcement of the ESA by capping and increasing the difficulty of obtaining litigation fees, in addition to requiring publication of yearly reports detailing Federal expenditures related to ESA cases, including 

settlements and attorneys’ fees. Citizen enforcement is a critical part of the ESA’s 

design, and central to the rule of law. These provisions could deter citizens from providing a vital check in the form of judicial review of erroneous agency decision 

making. 

H.R. 6344: Land Ownership Collaboration Accelerates Life Act of 2018 

(LOCAL Act) 

The LOCAL Act would create a major loophole in the ESA’s prohibition on take 

of endangered and threatened species that could eviscerate protections for species 

that are already on the brink of extinction. This bill proposes to add provisions 

under a new section 10(l) that would allow individuals to request a determination 

from the Secretary regarding whether a particular activity would constitute unlawful take. If the Secretary determines that the proposed activity complies with the 

law, then any use or action taken by the property owner in ‘‘reasonable reliance’’ 

would be exempted from the take prohibitions of the ESA. If the Secretary fails to 

respond to such a request within 180 days, the activity would automatically be 

exempt from the ESA’s take prohibition. 

The LOCAL Act would unreasonably burden the Secretary, who may lack the 

resources necessary to provide a timely response, while at the same time creating 

incentives for individuals to inundate the Secretary with requests in the hopes of 

obtaining authority to take listed species outside of the normal permitting process. 

After a missed deadline, an automatic no take determination would remain effective 

for 5 years; if the Secretary responds that the requested activities do not constitute 

a take, this determination would be effective for 10 years. Under the bill, the 

Secretary may only withdraw such a determination in the case of unforeseen 

changed circumstances. 

Most disturbing, if the Secretary finds that the proposed use would not comply 

with the ESA’s take prohibition (or withdraws a no take determination), the LOCAL 

Act would entitle the landowner to financial compensation for the full market value 

of its proposed use. This sweeping provision effectively pays property owners to comply with the law and would quickly bankrupt funding for the ESA. The requirement 

to pay full market value for a proposed use, without regard to the relative extent 

of the property owner’s loss or the other economic uses to which its property can 

be put, violates settled constitutional principles governing compensation for regulatory takings and invites speculative and fraudulent claims. The Fifth Amendment 

of the Constitution guarantees just compensation when an individual’s property is 

taken for public use, but a mere regulation does not trigger compensation unless 

the property owner suffers a physical appropriation or a near total loss of a 

property’s economic value.27 All citizens benefit from government regulation that 

maintains a healthy environment, and their use of their property can be limited by 

such regulation without compensation except in the rare case where it rises to a 

government taking. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. recognized in the seminal 

case that defined regulatory takings, ‘‘Government hardly could go on if to some 

32 

28Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 413 (1922). 29 16 U.S.C. §§ 1533(b)(5)(A), (i). 30 50 C.F.R. § 424.14(b). 

extent values incident to property could not be diminished without paying for every 

such change in the general law.’’ 28 The LOCAL Act thus provides a financial windfall without any constitutional basis to selected property owners simply to ensure 

that they comply with the ESA. This would cripple the ESA’s implementation. 

H.R. 6345: Ensuring Meaningful Petition Outreach While Enhancing Rights 

of States Act of 2018 (EMPOWERS Act) 

The EMPOWERS Act would require the Services to engage in an elaborate notice 

and consultation process with states and counties and would provide states and 

counties with de facto veto power over listing and critical habitat decisions. Upon 

finding that a petition to list a species or revise its critical habitat may be warranted, H.R. 6345 directs the Secretary to seek out from state and county governments information related not just to the species’ status but also to the potential 

impacts of the petitioned action on the locality and invites state and county officials 

to advise whether such action is ‘‘merited.’’ The EMPOWERS Act thus opens the 

door to elevating non-biological factors, such as economic costs, in the listing 

process. 

Most concerning, if a state or county objects to a proposed listing or critical habitat determination, this bill would forbid the Secretary from proceeding with the 

action unless the Secretary demonstrates that information submitted by the locality 

is ‘‘incorrect’’ and that the action is warranted. The Secretary is thus precluded from 

listing a species or revising its critical habitat if any information submitted by a 

locality is correct (or cannot be demonstrated to be incorrect), regardless of whether 

that information is relevant to the decision or sufficient to overcome other scientific 

information in the record that supports the action. 

As with H.R. 3608, this bill elevates political considerations over sound science. 

States and local governments have ample opportunities to participate in the listing 

process and provide relevant information to the Services. The ESA already requires 

the Secretary to notify states and counties of proposals to list species or designate 

critical habitat and invite their comments, and requires the Secretary to furnish a 

written justification to a state if he or she issues a listing or critical habitat regulation that conflicts with the state’s comments.29 A 2016 Obama administration regulation already requires petitioners to notify states of their intention to file a listing 

petition.30 The elaborate procedure that would be established under the 

EMPOWERS Act is thus unnecessary to ensure that states and localities can fully 

participate and submit relevant information in the petition process, and its provisions inviting consideration of non-biological factors in listing and granting states 

and counties an arbitrary veto over listings and revisions of critical habitat plainly 

subvert the integrity of the ESA. 

H.R. 6346: Weigh Habitat Offsetting Locational Effects Act of 2018 (WHOLE 

Act) 

The WHOLE Act strikes at what many have called the ‘‘heart of the ESA’’—the 

section 7 consultation process. Section 7 requires that Federal agencies consult with 

the Services whenever an action authorized, funded or carried out by the agency 

could jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or adversely modify its 

critical habitat. Formal consultation results in a biological opinion and incidental 

take statement that sets forth reasonable and prudent measures to minimize the 

take of listed species. This bill adds a requirement that the Secretary consider the 

‘‘offsetting effects of all avoidance, minimization, and other species-protection or conservation measures that are already in place or proposed to be implemented as part 

of the action, including the development, improvement, protection, or management 

of species habitat whether or not it is designated as critical habitat of such species.’’ 

The Services already consider avoidance, minimization and other conservation 

measures that are included in a proposed action during consultation, as well as 

evaluating existing conservation measures that benefit a species as part of the environmental baseline. In doing so, however, the Services evaluate the reliability of 

such measures, including the extent to which they are funded, the certainty of their 

implementation and the likelihood that they will in fact provide the projected benefits to the species. Such evaluation is essential, since the environmental record is 

replete with instances where agencies or project proponents have failed to implement mitigation measures or where such mitigation fails to achieve its expected 

benefit. The direction in the WHOLE Act to consider ‘‘all’’ such measures appears 

to direct the Services to consider any mitigation proposal, regardless of how speculaVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:14 Dec 18, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\115TH CONGRESS\FULL COMMITTEE\9-26-18\31631.TXT DARLEN
33 

31 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Environmental Litigation: Information on 

Endangered Species Act Deadline Suits, GAO–17–304 at 19 (Feb. 28, 2017), https://www.gao.gov/ 

products/GAO-17-304. 32See also Editorial, The Public Role in Species Protection, N.Y. Times, Aug. 29, 2012, https:// 

www.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/opinion/the-public-role-in-species-protection.html (citing examples). 

tive, unfunded or ineffective it may be. Moreover, requiring the Services to consider 

‘‘the offsetting effects’’ of existing conservation measures is illogical, since beneficial 

measures already in place cannot ‘‘offset’’ the detrimental impacts of new actions. 

The extent to which existing conservation measures have benefited a species is 

properly considered in evaluating the environmental baseline regarding the status 

of the species. 

H.R. 6354: Stop Takings on Reserves Antithetical to Germane Encapsulation Act of 2018 (STORAGE Act) 

This bizarrely named bill prohibits the designation of critical habitat within 

reservoirs, canals, and other water storage, diversion or delivery facilities where 

habitat is periodically created and destroyed due to changing water levels resulting 

from the operation of these facilities. This unnecessary bill would have limited application but risks blocking the designation of critical habitat that may be necessary 

for a species to survive. The prevalence of reservoirs and water projects throughout 

areas of the western United States has contributed to widespread losses of riparian 

habitat that are essential for imperiled species. As the West experiences changes in 

its long-term hydrological cycle due to climate change, many reservoirs operate at 

reduced capacity, restoring riparian habitat that may be highly valuable for listed 

species. Any designation of critical habitat in such areas would have to take into 

account adverse economic impacts, including constraints on the future operation of 

the facility, so such designation is unlikely except where changes in the operation 

of a project create opportunities to restore riparian habitat over a long term without 

disruption of a project. This bill would preclude consideration of such habitat 

protection altogether. 

H.R. 6355: Providing ESA Timing Improvements That Increase Opportunities for Nonlisting Act of 2018 (PETITION Act) 

The PETITION Act is among the most problematic bills being considered by this 

Committee. The bill declares, without evidence, that the listing petition process, a 

key safeguard that allows citizens to petition for protection of species that face extinction, is overloaded because of the intentional submission of frivolous petitions 

with the express purpose of forcing the Service to miss statutory deadlines or list 

species that do not deserve protection. 

These charges are unfounded. As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

recently found, other than setting schedules for completing actions required under 

section 4, settlement agreements in deadline litigation ‘‘did not affect the substantive basis or procedural rulemaking requirements the Services were to follow in 

completing the actions.’’ 31 There is simply no basis for the claim that deadline settlements lead to species being listed that do not, as a scientific matter, warrant the 

protections of the ESA. Nor is there any basis for the conspiracy theory that environmentalists intentionally submit unwarranted listing petitions in order to overload the listing system. I am unaware of any court decision or agency determination 

that has concluded that environmentalists have done so. Although citizen petitions 

have at times strained the capability of the Services, that is a reflection of the 

limited resources the Services are provided for listing. Citizen petitions have led to 

the listing of many species from the loggerhead sea turtle to the polar bear and the 

red knot that are critically imperiled and fully warrant the protections of the ESA.32

If the premise that the petition process is being intentionally abused were limited 

to ‘‘findings,’’ the bill could be dismissed as partisan rhetoric. That demonstrably 

false accusation underlies highly damaging substantive provisions, however, that 

would cut the heart out of the ESA by precluding the Services from even considering 

listing petitions during any period when a backlog of listing petitions exists. 

Without providing additional resources to avoid such backlogs, this approach would 

prevent species from receiving the protections of the ESA and could lead to their 

extinction. 

This bill requires the Secretary to declare ‘‘petition backlogs’’ and suspend listing 

decisions if the number of species included in petitions with missed 90-day or 12- 

month findings exceeds 5 percent of the number of species for which 90-day or 12- 

month petitions have been presented over the last 15 years. Once a backlog for 

these petitions has been declared, under most circumstances, the bill requires the 

Secretary to prioritize addressing petitions to de-list or down-list species above 

34 

33Friends of Blackwater v. Salazar, 691 F.3d 428, 432–33 (D.C. Cir. 2012). 

petitions to list or uplist species until the backlog is resolved. The bill would suspend statutory deadlines for responding to petitions to list or uplist species, and 

automatically deny most petitions to list or uplist species during a petition backlog. 

The bill also precludes judicial review of decisions denying listing petitions, but not 

of decisions granting listing or denying de-listing or down-listing petitions, thus depriving citizens seeking to protect species of their rights to seek court redress while 

empowering industries and property owners who oppose listings and press for delisting species to challenge decisions adverse to their interests. 

The PETITION Act would deny ESA protection for imperiled species due to 

resource constraints that prevent the Secretary from meeting statutory petition 

deadlines, and that are wholly the fault of Congress in failing to provide adequate 

funding for the ESA. It would elevate de-listing of species that are, by definition, 

no longer in peril over the protection of species that face imminent extinction. It 

subverts the very purpose of the ESA. 

H.R. 6356: Less Imprecision in Species Treatment Act of 2018 (LIST Act) 

Like the PETITION Act, the LIST Act also subverts the ESA’s science-based 

process for evaluating whether a species is recovered and should be de-listed. The 

ESA currently requires that the same process and criteria be used to both list and 

de-list a species by making a determination on the basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available when considering the five listing factors under section 

4(a)(1). The courts have held that those factors, and not other considerations such 

as the goals of recovery plans, must form the basis for any decision to list or delist.33

The LIST Act, however, directs the Secretary to de-list species if the Department 

of the Interior (oddly, the Department of Commerce, which shares the administration of the ESA, is omitted) has produced or received substantial information demonstrating that the species ‘‘is recovered’’ or that the goals of a recovery plan for 

a species have been met regardless of the statutory factors set forth in section 4(a). 

This change would subvert the integrity of the ESA because the de-listing process 

would no longer require a methodical review of the listing factors to ensure that a 

listed species is not threatened or endangered, elevating recovery goals above the 

statutory factors that determine whether a species is threatened or endangered. The 

bill does not define what might constitute ‘‘recovery,’’ leaving that critical concept 

ambiguous and creating the obvious risk that species that still qualify under section 

4(a) may lose statutory protection. Moreover, the bill dispenses with rulemaking requirements intended to ensure public transparency and reliability of agency information, directing that the Secretary only publish a notice that a species is being 

removed rather than the text of a proposed de-listing regulation, as now required 

by the ESA. 

The LIST Act also establishes a one-sided process for de-listing based on the false 

premise that many species are erroneously listed. The bill would allow for cursory 

de-listings if the Secretary determines, based on information submitted by third parties or developed by the Department of the Interior (again, oddly omitting the 

Department of Commerce), that the species was listed based on information that 

was ‘‘inaccurate beyond scientifically reasonable margins of error,’’ fraudulent, or 

misrepresentative. If the Secretary determines that the listing was less than likely 

to have occurred absent such information, the species would be cursorily de-listed 

(without consideration of the statutory factors in section 4(a)) and that determination would not be subject to judicial review. By contrast, as usual in these bills, a 

decision by the Secretary that finds that the original petition did not contain inaccurate, fraudulent or misrepresentative information would be subject to judicial review by parties interested in forcing the delisting of the species. 

Finally, in an apparent attempt to limit citizen petitions, the bill would punish 

a person who submitted a listing petition containing any information later determined to be inaccurate beyond scientifically reasonable margins of error, fraudulent, 

or misrepresentative by prohibiting the person from submitting future petitions for 

10 years. 

H.R. 6360: Permit Reassurances Enabling Direct Improvements for 

Conservation, Tenants, and Species Act of 2018 (PREDICTS Act) 

This bill unnecessarily codifies the existing well-established practice of allowing 

non-Federal landowners to enter into Candidate Conservation Agreements with 

Assurances and Safe Harbor Agreements. H.R. 6360 requires that all Incidental 

Take Permits, Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances, and Safe 

Harbor Agreements contain assurances governing permit revocation, changed 

35 

34 Alejandro E. Camacho, et al., Assessing State Laws and Resources for Endangered Species 

Protection, 47 Envtl. L. Inst. 10837 (2017), https://www.law.uci.edu/centers/cleanr/news-pdfs/ 

cleanr-esa-report-final.pdf. 35 Id. at 10837–10838. 

circumstances, and unforeseen circumstances. But the bill only allows the Secretary 

to revoke these permits and agreements in very limited circumstances. In contrast 

to current administrative practice established in Service regulations, the bill would 

not allow termination for the landowner’s failure to implement the agreement or 

violations of law. The bill thus makes it more difficult for the Secretary to enforce 

these agreements or alter them in the face of changed circumstances. 

H.R. 6364: Localizing Authority of Management Plans Act of 2018 (LAMP 

Act) 

Like many of the bills under consideration, H.R. 6364 would expand the role of 

the states in implementing the ESA and impair the ability of Federal agencies to 

conserve species. Section 6 of the ESA allows states and the Federal Government 

to enter into cooperative agreements, whereby the states propose programs to conserve listed species and the Secretary assists with the management of those programs. The LAMP Act, however, would amend this provision to authorize the 

Secretary to broadly transfer management of resident listed species to state governments, and to provide Federal funding to support the state program. Unlike the current section 6, states will be permitted to protect only some species or taxonomic 

groups of species, rather than all species listed under the ESA. In addition, the bill 

removes language from current law that prevents states from enacting laws that are 

less restrictive than Federal laws, creating the risk that state programs established 

under this authority will relax existing protections for listed species. 

Proposals to delegate the ESA to the states raise very substantial risks for the 

integrity and effectiveness of the law. Although states play a vital role in conserving 

resident species of wildlife, their focus has historically been on the management of 

game species, and the funding for state fish and wildlife agencies is often derived 

primarily from hunting licenses and fishing permits. States have in more recent 

years begun to engage with conserving non-game species, in part stimulated by the 

provision of Federal funds for such conservation through state wildlife grants. But 

states still generally lack the legal authority under state law, the biological expertise, or the funds to effectively conserve imperiled species. A recent study by the 

University of California Irvine School of Law found that few state ESA laws protect 

all endangered species within their state, that many state ESA laws do not require 

decisions to be based on sound science, that few state ESA laws require consultation 

with expert state fish and wildlife agencies on the effects of state approved projects 

on listed species, that most state ESA laws do not allow citizens to petition for listing or de-listing species, that most state ESA laws fail to provide authority for the 

designation and protection of critical habitat, that few state ESA laws even protect 

against harm to listed species’ habitat, that virtually no states have authority to 

plan for species recovery, and—perhaps most revealing—that state expenditures 

make up only approximately 5 percent of ESA spending.34 As the authors of the 

study conclude: ‘‘[W]ithout significant state law reforms in most states, the proposed 

devolution of Federal authority and responsibility over threatened and endangered 

species to states is likely to undermine conservation and recovery efforts, lead to a 

greater number of species becoming imperiled, and result in fewer species 

recovered.’’ 35

The LAMP Act would also allow non-Federal parties to manage species on certain 

public and private lands while being exempted from the ESA’s consultation requirement and take prohibition. The ESA currently allows the Secretary to enter into 

‘‘management agreements’’ with states that allow the state to manage areas established for the conservation of a listed species. The LAMP Act, however, would allow 

the Secretary to enter into ‘‘cooperative management agreements’’ with any unit of 

government or non-Federal person. In addition to expanding the scope of who may 

enter into such an agreement, the LAMP Act would allow parties to a cooperative 

management agreement to manage both species and land, as opposed to the current 

ESA’s provisions that states may only manage land. Moreover, the LAMP Act would 

exempt parties to an agreement from sections 5, 7, and 9 of the ESA, allowing them 

to forgo consultation on Federal actions and ignore the ESA’s take prohibition. 

These provisions empower local governments and non-Federal parties, such as oil 

and gas companies, to apply for authority to manage species, undermining the 

authority of both the Federal Government and the states over wildlife. Such 

entrants may have subversive motives or insufficient knowledge, pushing imperiled 

species even further toward extinction. Finally, the LAMP Act would exempt entry 

36 

36 Newt Gingrich & Terry Maple, A Contract with the Earth: Ten Commitments You Can Make 

to Protect the Environment Now, 170 (2008). 

into cooperative management agreements from review under the National 

Environmental Policy Act, allowing the Secretary to ignore the potential environmental impacts of entering into such agreements. 

CONCLUSION

The ESA has been an indispensable safety net for fish, wildlife and plants. As 

former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich wrote in a recent book: ‘‘Bold leadership 

produced the Endangered Species Act in 1973, perhaps the most effective piece of 

environmental legislation in our country’s history. The Act has been, by any measure, a very successful guardian of wildlife and habitat and any attempt to weaken 

it should be resisted.’’ 36 Unfortunately, the bills pending before this Committee ignore the ESA’s achievements and popularity and would seriously undermine species 

conservation. 

None of these bills would improve species conservation. Each would undermine 

the ESA, often dramatically. If these measures are enacted, species deserving of 

Federal protection will be denied the help they need to survive and recover. 

This is not the time to play politics. If the proponents of these bills are really interested in helping species recovery and avoiding further extinctions, they should 

support critically needed funding increases for the Services rather than advancing 

these damaging legislative proposals that only undermine the ESA. On behalf of 

Defenders of Wildlife and our 1.8 million members and supporters, I strongly urge 

this Committee to reject every one of these dangerous bills. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY REP. GOSAR TO MR. ROBERT DREHER, 

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, CONSERVATION PROGRAMS & GENERAL COUNSEL, 

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE

Question 1. Mr. Dreher, since 1976, your organization, the Defenders of Wildlife 

has been the litigant in 510 lawsuits. How many dollars in attorney’s fees has 

Defenders of Wildlife collected as a result of litigation against the Federal 

Government? 

Answer. Since 2009, Defenders of Wildlife has recovered $824,279.58 in attorney’s 

fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act or other statutes that provide for an 

award of fees to a prevailing party in litigation against the United States. This 

amount represents a fraction of 1 percent of the organization’s annual budget for 

those years. Defenders of Wildlife does not have records of attorney fee awards prior 

to 2009. 

Question 2. Mr. Dreher, you have opposition to all the bills in the package, which 

should come as no surprise to anyone given the extremist group you work for. You 

even spoke against the PREDICTS Act which codifies the Clinton administration’s 

1998 ‘‘No Surprises’’ rule. Can you name one reform to the ESA, other than throwing 

more money at problems you all likely caused, that the Defenders of Wildlife has 

pursued through congressional legislation and supported over the last 30 years? 

Answer. Over the past 30 years, Defenders of Wildlife has supported various 

amendments to the ESA, including: 

1. Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1988 

• 100th Congress—H.R. 1467 

2. Endangered Species Recovery Act of 1997 

• 105th Congress—S. 1180, H.R. 2351 

3. Endangered Species Recovery Act of 1999 

• 106th Congress—H.R. 960 

4. Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2001 

• 107th Congress—H.R. 4579 

In addition to these bills, Defenders of Wildlife published a report in 1994, 

Building Economic Incentives Into the Endangered Species Act, advocating for legislative changes to the ESA which would create various tax incentive provisions, develop funds to reward and incentivize private landowners, and require Habitat 

37 

Conservation Plans for candidate species. Several of these recommendations were 

adopted administratively by Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt. 

Defenders of Wildlife has also supported a wide variety of legislation which would 

improve wildlife conservation in conjunction with the ESA. These bills include: 

1. The Global Warming Wildlife Survival Act (which later became known as the 

Safeguarding America’s Future and Environment Act) 

a. 110th Congress—S. 2204, H.R. 2338 

b. 112th Congress—S. 1881 

c. 113th Congress—S. 1202, H.R. 5065 

d. 114th Congress—S. 1601, H.R. 2804 

e. 115th Congress—S. 2176, H.R. 4490 

2. The Protect America’s Wildlife Act of 2007 

a. 110th Congress—H.R. 3663 

b. 111th Congress—S. 1535, H.R. 2281 

3. Wildlife Corridors Conservation Act of 2016 

a. 114th Congress—H.R. 6448 

4. The Scientific Assistance for Very Endangered North Atlantic Right Whales 

Act of 2018 

a. 115th Congress—S. 3038, H.R. 6060 

5. The Eliminate, Neutralize, and Disrupt Wildlife Trafficking Act of 2016 

a. 114th Congress—S. 2385, H.R. 2494 

6. America’s Wildlife Heritage Act 

a. 111th Congress—H.R. 2807 

b. 112th Congress—H.R. 3496 

Defenders of Wildlife is not currently supporting any proposals for legislative 

changes to the ESA. Out of the over 110 bills, amendments and riders we have identified relating to the ESA that have been introduced in the current Congress, none 

would benefit species conservation. Instead, all are harmful to protected species and/ 

or the ESA, including all of the bills that were the subject of the Committee’s 

September 26, 2018 hearing. Defenders of Wildlife works continually to improve the 

implementation of the ESA, however, through its field programs and through its 

Center for Conservation Innovation (CCI), which uses data, technology, and interdisciplinary approaches to pioneer innovative, pragmatic conservation solutions. 

More information about CCI’s initiatives can be found at: https://defenders.org/ 

innovation. 

Question 3. Mr. Dreher, you testified that these bills are and I quote, ‘‘all to benefit 

a minority of special interests in a few western states.’’ I take offense to that. I’d 

encourage you to look at our website and review the list of the 170 stakeholders 

throughout the country that are supporting these bills. Is the Florida Farm Bureau 

Federation from the West? How about the Missouri Sheep Producers? How about the 

National Association of Realtors, are they solely in the West? How about the U.S. 

Chamber, solely in the West? And by the way, what is your disdain for the West? 

Answer. I don’t personally have any disdain for the West, nor does Defenders of 

Wildlife. We believe that all Americans have a vital stake in the protection of our 

natural heritage. Defenders of Wildlife works closely with state and local governments and people throughout the West to conserve wildlife and supports western 

communities through our co-existence programs. For example, we work with 

ranchers to prevent attacks on livestock through range riders, livestock guard dogs, 

fladry and trail cameras. Defenders of Wildlife subsidizes construction of electric 

fences for securing grizzly bear attractants, such as garbage, fruit trees and livestock, in states like Washington, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. These programs are 

central to our mission of reducing human-wildlife conflict and working toward 

sustainable solutions that benefit both wildlife and people. 

We can’t, however, ignore the fact that the Western Caucus and its members took 

the lead on sponsoring these nine bills, which are all harmful to endangered species 

conservation. The goals of many of these bills appear to be to reduce protections for 

imperiled species, delegate regulatory authority to state or local governments, limit 

opportunities for judicial review by citizens concerned with protecting imperiled 

38 

species, and otherwise facilitate development activities that might be constrained 

under the ESA. It is no coincidence that pro-development interests, such as oil, gas, 

mineral extraction and farming interests make up a clear majority of the supporters 

to these bills. Many of those organizations are from the West or represent interests 

that are heavily engaged in development of western resources, including such 

groups as the American Petroleum Institute, the Independent Petroleum Association 

of America, the National Mining Association, the American Loggers Council, the 

National Grazing Lands Coalition, the Western Energy Alliance, and a host of 

others. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Wood. 

STATEMENT OF JONATHAN WOOD, ATTORNEY, PACIFIC 

LEGAL FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. WOOD. Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and 

honorable members of the Committee, thank you for giving me the 

opportunity to testify on this important issue. My name is 

Jonathan Wood. I am an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, and also a research fellow with the Property Environment 

Research Center. 

The Endangered Species Act is the Nation’s most popular environmental law. Yet, surveys reveal that most of the public has little understanding of how the law works, or what it has achieved. 

Thus, Congress should heed the public’s deep concern for endangered species. But it would be a mistake to assume that because 

the law polls well, everything is working perfectly and we cannot 

improve on what we have now. 

In fact, the ESA’s record of accomplishing its goals is rather 

mixed. On the bright side, only 1 percent of species protected by 

the law have gone extinct. Now, that is an accomplishment we can 

and all should celebrate. However, only 3 percent of protected 

species have recovered, and I think we can do better. 

To better achieve both of the ESA’s goals, we need bold reforms 

that improve the incentives for states, property owners, and conservationists to work together toward species recovery. That is why 

I am glad to see that the LOCAL Act provides financial incentives 

for efforts to protect species and recover habitat, transforming rare 

species from a liability into an asset. 

Similarly, the EMPOWERS Act seeks to better enlist states as 

partners in conservation. When combined with the reforms proposed by the Administration, these can help boost the rate at which 

we recover species without sacrificing the law’s success at preventing extinction. 

But in addition to substantive reforms, we also need process reforms to address some of the persistent points of conflict under the 

Act. The PETITION Act and LIST Act, for instance, address some 

of the conflicts that arise under the listing process. 

It is undeniable that, historically, the number of petitions filed 

have exceeded the agency’s ability to review them by the strict 

deadlines contained in the statute. Reviewing petitions is expensive. Even petitions that are meritless may cost the agency upwards of $150,000 to review. And unfortunately, as the Obama 

administration explained in a proposed rule in 2016, it is the weakest petitions that can impose the greatest burdens, because they 

39 

require agency staff to decipher petitions that may lack any clear 

logic. 

Due to the backlog, listing policy has historically been driven primarily by the interest of whichever organizations petition and sue 

the most. Science on the threats to species, and the agency’s policy 

judgments, by comparison, have played a reduced role. 

Fortunately, the Obama administration found a way to address 

this problem. It established a system to prioritize petitions based 

on the seriousness of threats species face, the quality of the data, 

and whether state and private conservation efforts are ongoing. 

The PETITION Act would codify this approach, confirming that 

agencies can prioritize petitions with the most merit over those 

with the least, which would allow the agency to focus their resources where they can do the most good, rather than having priorities arbitrarily set by litigation. 

Another persistent source of conflict is the difficulty in de-listing 

species. Although the law assigns the same standards and preference for listing and de-listing decisions, this has not been borne 

out in practice. In my written testimony, I describe several cases 

where the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ignored its own scientists’ 

determination that a species’ status had improved. 

In the case of the manatee, for instance, the agency dragged its 

heels for an entire decade, and it likely would have continued to 

delay the decision if PLF had not filed a petition and sued, sued, 

and sued again on behalf of affected property owners. The LIST Act 

would require a prompt de-listing of species, once agency scientists 

determine they no longer require protection. It would also require 

prompt de-listing where a species was listed based on bad data. 

A problem which a recent Heritage Foundation study found is far 

more significant than we previously assumed. In fact, if you properly allocate species between whether they recovered, went extinct, 

or were originally listed in error, that is the largest category, and 

it trumps the others. 

Thus, the proposals in the LIST Act are sensible changes. There 

is compelling evidence that merely listing a species without devoting resources to its conservation can cause more harm than good. 

Thus, when species linger on the list, they siphon conservation 

funding away from the species that truly need it. 

In my written testimony, I identify several points that could benefit from further clarification or improvement. Today, I want to 

particularly caution the Committee about barring judicial review. 

Undoubtedly, too many ESA issues wind up in litigation. But the 

solution is to address the underlying incentives behind that problem, as H.R. 3608 would do, by limiting attorney’s fees to reasonable rates. 

But as I explained in my written testimony, broad bans on 

judicial review are an invitation for agency mischief. 

In conclusion, the reforms we are discussing today appropriately 

focus on reducing conflict, while providing better incentives for 

species recovery. That is precisely what we need to achieve the 

ESA’s goals. 

Thank you, and I look forward to questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wood follows:] 

40 

1 Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation; Research Fellow, Property and Environment Research 

Center. 2Founded in 1973, Pacific Legal Foundation is a nationwide public interest legal group that 

fights to secure all Americans’ inalienable rights to live responsibly and productively in their 

pursuit of happiness. It has secured 10 wins at the Supreme Court of the United States on 

behalf of property owners and individuals whose rights were violated by government. 3See, e.g., Jonathan Wood, The Road to Recovery: How Restoring the Endangered Species Act’s 

Two-Step Process Can Prevent Extinction and Promote Recovery, PERC Policy Report (2018). 4See, e.g., Tulcin, et al., Poll Finds Overwhelming, Broad-Based Support for the Endangered 

Species Act Among Voters Nationwide, Tulchin Research Memo (July 6, 2015), available at 

https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/PollingMemoNationalESASurvey.pdf. 5See Press Release, Association of Zoos and Aquariums, U.S. Americans Greatly 

Underestimate How Many Animals on the Endangered Species List, Study Shows (May 14, 

2018), available at https://www.aza.org/aza-news-releases/posts/us-americans-greatlyunderestimate-how-many-animals-on-the-endangered-species-list-study-shows. 6See id. 7See generally Ilya Somin, Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government Is 

Smarter (2013). 8See Alan Rappeport, ‘What is Aleppo?’ Gary Johnson Asks, in an Interview Stumble, N.Y. 

Times (Sept. 7, 2016), available at https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us/politics/gary-johnsonaleppo.html. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JONATHAN WOOD,1 PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION 2 ON

H.R. 6355 (PETITION ACT) AND H.R. 6356 (LIST ACT) 

MAIN POINTS

• For decades, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has struggled to keep up with 

a persistent backlog of listing and de-listing petitions. 

• The backlog workplan is a sensible, bipartisan response to this problem. 

• The public shouldn’t have to bring multiple suits to get agencies to listen to 

their own scientists. 

Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and honorable members of the 

Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important issue. 

Forty-five years after the Endangered Species Act was enacted, we have learned 

a lot about how the law works and doesn’t work. We can be proud that only 1 

percent of protected species have gone extinct. But we should be equally dissatisfied 

that only 3 percent of those species have recovered. We can and must do better. And 

that requires a combination of reforms. First, bold reforms are needed to improve 

the incentives for states, property owners, and conservationists to work together 

toward species recovery.3 And, second, process reforms must address some of the 

persistent points of conflict that distract from those recovery efforts. 

The PETITION Act and LIST Act address two of the most persistent bureaucratic 

problems in the administration of the Act. In fact, they codify or build on reforms 

proposed administratively by both the Obama and Trump administrations. 

Importantly, these reforms will restore the government’s ability to focus on the 

species that most need protection while spurring the de-listing of species that no 

longer require it. 

The popular but poorly understood Endangered Species Act 

The Endangered Species Act is one of our Nation’s most popular environmental 

laws. Surveys routinely reveal broad, bipartisan support.4 Almost everyone, regardless of political persuasion, embraces the goals of the Endangered Species Act. 

However, it’s equally clear that most Americans know very little about how the law 

works and what results it has achieved. 

A recent survey by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, for instance, found 

that the average American believes there are only 80–100 species on the 

Endangered Species List.5 (There are nearly 1,500.) They do not know that species 

like the bald eagle have recovered, despite the good news being widely publicized.6

Nor can many identify popular species that have recently been listed. 

This lack of knowledge is understandable. Social scientists have long observed 

that the public is rationally ignorant of many important issues because time is limited, acquiring information is costly, and the odds that an investment in further 

knowledge will affect the outcome are extremely low.7 If any of us were quizzed on 

enough public policy topics, we’d inevitably have our own ‘‘what is Aleppo?’’ 

moment.8

Because people care so deeply about the law’s purposes, but understandably know 

little about its operation, any reform—whether a major reworking of the Act or the 

41 

9See Tate Watkins, Changing the Endangered Species Act could actually help conservation, Wash. Post (July, 24, 2018), available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/ 

wp/2018/07/24/changing-the-endangered-species-act-could-actually-help-conservation/?utm_term= 

.0ef3d3eb8a24 (noting that environmentalists’ views on the Trump administration’s proposals 

ranged from the ‘‘sky-is-falling’’ to seeing opportunities for conservation benefits); Editorial, 

Endangered Species Scare, Wall St. J. (July 26, 2018), available at https://www.wsj.com/articles/ 

endangered-species-scare-1532646111?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=5. 10See, e.g., Lydia Wheeler, Endangered species rule changed, angering environmental groups, 

TheHill.com (Sept. 26, 2016), available at https://thehill.com/regulation/energy-environment/ 

297752-rule-changes-petitioning-process-for-animal-protections (describing environmental opposition to one minor rule change to the petition process proposed and finalized by the Obama 

administration). 11See Lisa Feldkamp, What has the Endangered Species Act ever done for us? More than you 

think., Nature.org May 8, 2017), available at https://blog.nature.org/science/2017/05/08/whatendangered-species-act-done-effective-extinction-conservation/. 12See Jonathan H. Adler, The Leaky Ark: The Failure of Endangered Species Regulation on 

Private Land, in Rebuilding the Ark: New Perspectives on Endangered Species Act Reform 

(2011) (noting the distressingly few number of successful recoveries, several of which cannot 

directly be attributed to the ESA). 13See Jonathan Wood, The Endangered Species Two-Step, PERC Reports vol. 37 (Sum. 2018), 

available at https://www.perc.org/2018/07/13/the-endangered-species-two-step/; see also Tate 

Watkins, If a Frog Had Wings, Would It Fly to Louisiana?, PERC Reports, vol. 37 (Sum. 2018), 

available at https://www.perc.org/2018/07/13/if-a-frog-had-wings-would-it-fly-to-louisiana/ 

(describing the challenges and incredible efforts by the Nature Conservancy to restore habitat 

for the dusky gopher frog). 14Todd Woody, Wildlife at Risk Face Long Line at U.S. Agency, N.Y. Times (Apr. 20, 2011), 

available at https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/science/earth/21species.html. 15See, e.g., Department of Interior, Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions, 79 Fed. 

Reg. 72,450, 72,456 (Dec. 5, 2014). 16See id. 

most minor tweak imaginable—will generate political conflict.9 This problem has 

dogged the agencies charged with implementing the law, regardless of whether the 

administration is perceived as a friend or foe of environmentalists.10

We can’t even agree on whether the law is a success or failure. Supporters of the 

Act point to the fact that only 1 percent of species protected by it have gone 

extinct,11 while critics note that only 3 percent of those species have recovered.12

To anyone not entrenched in the conflict, the answer would seem obvious: it’s a little 

of both. The Endangered Species Act provides an effective backstop against species 

extinction but fails to adequately incentivize recovery efforts.13 But such a nuanced 

view often escapes the debate. 

All of this is to say that Congress should heed the public’s deep concern for the 

protection and recovery of endangered species. But it would be a mistake to assume 

that, because the Endangered Species Act polls well, it is working perfectly and 

cannot be improved. It can. 

The chronic listing backlog and its causes 

The Endangered Species Act permits any interested person to petition the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service urging the 

listing or de-listing of a species. There is no cost to file a petition and minimal paperwork requirements. In principle, this is a laudable effort to empower anyone to 

participate in the process, regardless of their resources. 

In practice, a handful of well-healed organizations, not plucky citizen-scientists, 

dominate the petition process. From 2007 to 2011, for instance, two organizations 

filed 90 percent of listing petitions, according to the New York Times.14 Together, 

these two organizations have annual budgets exceeding $15 million and receive significant amounts in attorney’s fees paid by the Federal Government. 

Although a petition is virtually free to the petitioner, the mere filing of one can 

impose significant costs on the agencies. Even the most patently inadequate petition 

requires a response that, in the case of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, has a 

median cost of $39,276.15 If the petition indicates that a listing merely may be 

warranted—a relatively low bar—the agency must expend another $100,690.16

Thus, anyone may easily divert a substantial amount of the agency’s resources 

based on a minimum showing. Where a petition has merit and leads to the recognition of threats to a species, this is a bargain. But that the same resources can be 

diverted for petitions that don’t merit such expenditures is troubling. 

In fact, the greatest burdens are imposed by the weakest petitions because they 

require greater time and effort to decipher. When the Obama administration proposed reforms to the petition process, it emphasized the difficulty of reviewing weak 

petitions: ‘‘It has often proven to be difficult to know which supporting materials 

42 

17Proposed Revisions to the Regulations for Petition, 80 Fed. Reg. 29,286, 29,287 (May 21, 

2015). 18See Adler, supra n.12, at 13. 19See, e.g., Daniel Benjamin, Public pressure effects species listings, PERC Reports, vol. 18 

(2000), available at https://www.perc.org/2000/09/01/public-pressure-effects-species-listings/. 20See Wildlife at Risk Face Long Line at U.S. Agency, supra n. 14. 21See Jonathan Wood, Worried About Cuts to the ESA Listing Budget?, PERC.org (Feb. 20, 

2018), available at https://www.perc.org/2018/02/20/worried-cuts-esa-listing-budget/. 22See Congressional Research Service, The Prescription Drug User Fee Act: Background and 

Issues for PDUFA IV Reauthorization (2007), available at http://congressionalresearch.com/ 

RL33914/document.php. 23See GAO, Effect of User Fees on Drug Approval Times, Withdrawals, and Other Agency 

Activities (2002), available at https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02958.pdf. 24See Worried About Cuts to the ESA Listing Budget?, supra n.20. 

apply to which species, and has sometimes made it difficult to follow the logic of 

the petition.’’ 17

This is not merely a question of resources. There is compelling evidence that 

merely listing a species, without devoting resources to its conservation, may further 

imperil the species.18 In other words, resources that would be better spent pursuing 

species recovery are too often diverted to deciphering weak petitions. 

It is no exaggeration to say that Federal listing policy is, to a large extent, dictated by the preferences of whoever is most willing to petition and sue, as lawsuits 

are often required to receive a response to a petition. Science on the threats to a 

species and the agency’s policy judgment, by comparison, play a reduced role.19

Until recently, this problem was getting worse. From 1993 to 2007, the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service received petitions requesting an average of 20 species’ listings 

per year. From 2008 to 2011, that number skyrocketed to 308 per year. Much of 

this increase was driven by the filing of ‘‘megapetitions,’’ those urging the listing 

of dozens or hundreds of species at a time. In 2011, Gary Frazier, the assistant 

director for endangered species during the Obama administration, bemoaned that 

these petitions had derailed the process: 

[T]hey’re basically going to shut down our ability to list any candidates for 

the foreseeable future . . . If all our resources are used responding to petitions, we don’t have resources to put species on the endangered species list. 

It’s not a happy situation.’’ 20

Because this problem is the result of the underlying incentives of the petition 

process, more money may not solve the problem. Any additional listing-budget funds 

would likely be quickly dissipated by the filing of more petitions. And, because the 

weakest petitions require greater resources to decipher, it may result in throwing 

more good money after bad. 

In any event, more money is not a politically practical solution. In terms of political priorities, the listing budget is a very low priority.21 If given the power to allocate significant new funding, even the most ardent supporters of the Endangered 

Species Act as currently implemented would likely prioritize other actions, such as 

active recovery efforts, over pouring more into a bureaucratic process. 

Solving this problem would require a better allocation of these costs between the 

agency and petitioners. The backlog problem is not unique to the Endangered 

Species Act and Congress’ solution to the problem in other contexts could provide 

a blueprint. To address a long running backlog in the Food and Drug Administration’s review of new medicine applications, for instance, Congress brokered a deal 

by which pharmaceutical companies would bear the costs of those reviews in 

exchange for a commitment to reduce delays.22 That reform funded a 77 percent increase in agency staff to review new drug applications and cut approval times in 

half.23 Similarly, allowing environmentalists and industry to voluntarily pay for expedited petition reviews under the Endangered Species Act could improve the 

process for everyone by freeing up agency resources.24

Until the underlying incentives are reconciled, reforms to the petition process can 

go a long way toward returning, to the agencies appointed by Congress to 

administer the Act, the decision about which species most urgently require the 

government’s limited resources. An administrative reform by the Obama 

administration shows how this can be done. 

Codifying a temporary peace in the listing-backlog wars 

When the absurdity of the most recent backlog became too much to bear, the 

Obama administration brokered a temporary peace. In 2011, the Department of the 

Interior agreed to a settlement that established a 6-year workplan to review the 

then-pending megapetitions, in exchange for environmental groups submitting fewer 

43 

25See Juliet Eilperin, Interior Dept. strikes deal to clear backlog on endangered species listings, Wash. Post (May 10, 2011), available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/interiorstrikes-deal-with-conservation-groups-on-endangered-species-listings/2011/05/10/AF7iX2hG_story 

.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.158a4003b88a. 26 But see Allison Winter, Petitions for new species protection wobble balance in FWS 

settlement, agency says, E&E News (Aug. 7, 2012), available at https://www.eenews.net/ 

greenwire/2012/08/07/stories/1059968495. 27Fish and Wildlife Serv., Methodology for Prioritizing Status Reviews and Accompanying 12- 

Month Findings on Petitions for Listing Under the Endangered Species Act, 81 Fed. Reg. 49,248 

(July 27, 2016). 28 But see PETITION Act, § 4(a)(I)(ii). 29See, e.g., id. § 4(a)(H)(ii)(IV). 30PLF regularly litigates Endangered Species Act issues on behalf of individuals and organizations whose interests are harmed by over-reaching and counterproductive regulations. We 

have received minimal attorney’s fees for this work in recent years. PLF also notes that the 

cases in which it has received such fees are those in which the government has ignored its own 

scientists’ recommendation that a species’ status be changed. The LIST Act would address this 

problem, rendering future litigation on this issue unnecessary and eliminating this minimal 

source of attorney’s fees. 31 In fact, agencies have long used judicial-review bans to thwart Congress’ will. For instance, 

agencies flagrantly ignored the Regulatory Flexibility Act until Congress amended it by repealing its anti-judicial review provision. See 142 Cong. Rec. H3016 (Mar. 28, 1996) (statement of 

Continued 

such petitions.25 For the most part, environmental groups cooperated, giving the 

new plan time to work.26

As the initial 6-year workplan neared its conclusion, the Obama administration 

proposed a rule to formalize it.27 Under that rule, the Service would assign petitioned species into one of five bins, giving each a different priority based on the 

degree of threat the species faces, data quality, and whether state and private recovery efforts are ongoing. This allowed the agency to focus its limited resources on the 

petitions that most deserved them. 

Because the Endangered Species Act sets firm deadlines to respond to listing petitions, this approach has largely relied on goodwill. At any time, someone could challenge the agency’s failure to respond to a petition by the statutory deadline. And 

a court could order the agency to respond promptly, even if the agency had assigned 

the species a low priority under the workplan. 

The PETITION Act would codify the Obama administration’s approach, eliminating this litigation risk. Importantly, it would rely on the Service rather than random litigation outcomes to prioritize listing decisions in the face of budget 

constraints. It explicitly adopts the Obama administration’s methodology and allows 

it to be relied on anytime that the Secretary of the Interior declares a backlog. This 

methodology allows the government to focus its limited resources on those petitions 

that are most likely to result in species protection, rather than allowing those resources to be sapped by weaker petitions without such potential. The bill would also 

require transparency about implementation, both for the benefit of petitioners and 

the public. As the bill codifies an administrative reform developed by the Obama 

administration, it should enjoy broad support. Environmentalists and industry have 

experience working under this approach, and the early results have been positive. 

The bill could be further improved by allowing the Secretary of Interior to adjust 

which bin a species is assigned to based on updated information. For instance, one 

of the bins is reserved for species that the Service expects to receive new information on, revealing important data about its status. Once the anticipated study is released, it may be sensible for the species to be reassigned to a higher or lower 

priority bin, based on the results.28

It would also be useful to clarify what Congress expects to happen after the 

Service declines a petition under the PETITION Act’s mandatory deadlines.29 If 

such denials serve as a signal to the petitioner that she should provide more and 

better information when resubmitting, so that a subsequent petition is assigned a 

higher priority, this would be extremely useful. But if the Service could treat the 

petition denial as a judgment on the merits binding future petitions, that would be 

concerning—especially as the bill precludes judicial review of automatic denials 

based on the bill’s deadlines. 

Moreover, the Committee should be more concerned generally about the dangers 

of barring judicial review. Undoubtedly, too many Endangered Species Act issues result in litigation. But the solution is to address the underlying incentives that drive 

that problem, not to ban all litigation, including litigation that advances the public 

interest.30 In time, you may be surprised by the novel means agencies devise to 

abuse these provisions and thwart Congress’ will.31 Therefore, you should be 

extremely cautious about enacting any limitation on judicial review. 

44 

Rep. Ewing); 142 Cong. Rec. H3005 (Mar. 28, 1996) (statement of Rep. McIntosh). Today, 

agencies hide behind an ambiguous judicial review provision to avoid compliance with the 

Congressional Review Act. See Kansas Natural Resource Coalition v. Dept. of Interior, No. 18- 

cv-01114 (D. Ks. filed Apr. 10, 2018) (government has moved to dismiss a case seeking the submission of a rule under the CRA based on a theory that would utterly defeat the law’s purpose). 32See 83 Fed. Reg. 35,193, 35,196 (July 25, 2018) (acknowledging this problem and proposing 

to clarify that the Endangered Species Act requires the same standard be used in both 

instances). 33See Damien M. Schiff, Service proposes to de-list Valley elderberry longhorn beetle, PacificLegal.org (Oct. 1, 2012), available at https://pacificlegal.org/service-proposes-to-delistvalley-elderberry-longhorn-beetle/. 34See Pam Wright, Florida Manatee Status Changed to ‘Threatened’ As Congress Targets 

Endangered Species Act, weather.com (Mar. 31, 2017), available at https://weather.com/science/ 

nature/news/florida-manatee-endangered-species-regulations. 35 Robert Gordon, Correcting Falsely ‘‘Recovered’’ and Wrongly Listed Species and Increasing 

Accountability and Transparency in the Endangered Species Program, Heritage Found. 

Recognizing when species have recovered 

There have been depressingly few de-listings under the Endangered Species Act. 

Although this is primarily due to the lack of incentive for property owners to recover 

species, it is also due to agencies’ stubborn unwillingness to pursue de-listing with 

the same zeal as they pursue listing. Although the law imposes the same standard 

on de-listing decisions as applies to listing decisions, the agencies have imposed far 

higher burdens on the former in practice.32

Getting a species removed from the list is a daunting task, even where there is 

no question that the decision is merited. In case after case where the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s own scientists have determined that a species’ status should be 

changed, the agency has ignored them. Property owners can only obtain relief in 

such circumstances by filing several petitions and lawsuits, an ordeal which may be 

too expensive or intimidating for the average landowner to undertake. 

For instance, the Service’s scientists determined that the Valley Elderberry 

Longhorn Beetle should be de-listed in 2006. It ignored this science for 4 years, 

causing PLF to file a de-listing petition on behalf of an affected property owner. 

Despite this plea from a property owner and the agreement of its own scientists, 

the Service . . . did nothing. The property owner had to sue not once but twice before the Service finally proposed de-listing the insect in 2012.33 However, in 2014, 

it withdrew its proposal claiming the studies had become too stale—which of course 

was due to the agency’s dilatoriness. 

Similar frustrations were felt by property owners affected by the listing of the 

manatee, although that story at least has a happy ending. In 2007, the Service’s 

scientists determined that the manatee had recovered to the point that its status 

should be upgraded from endangered to threatened. The agency again ignored its 

scientists for a prolonged time, prompting PLF to file a petition on behalf of affected 

property owners. When that petition was ignored too, PLF filed a lawsuit to force 

a response in 2012. In response to that suit, the Service determined that the species’ 

status should be changed but again did not follow through. So PLF had to sue 

again. The Service finally reclassified the manatee in 2017, a decade after the 

science showed this move was warranted.34

Even the bald eagle, the species most cited as evidence of the law’s success, fell 

victim to this bureaucratic morass. When the Service determined the eagle should 

be de-listed, President Clinton held a press conference to share the news. That was 

1999. But no such de-listing was forthcoming. In 2005, PLF sued on behalf of an 

affected landowner, urging the Service to follow through. Instead, it fought to have 

the case dismissed. Only after the courts rejected this gambit did the Service 

belatedly de-list the species in 2007. 

Property owners should not have to sue, sue, and sue again to force the Service 

to do what it has admitted all along should be done. If the government behaved this 

way with listing decisions, it would be a national scandal. Imagine if the Service 

determined a species was critically endangered then ignored that determination, 

even in the face of petitions and lawsuits, which it fought rather than doing the 

right thing. 

The LIST Act would fix this imbalance by directing the Service to initiate the delisting process once its scientists conclude that a species has recovered or otherwise 

merits de-listing. That is a sensible change. There is no reason why species should 

linger on the list long after the science shows de-listing is warranted. 

The LIST Act also addresses another serious problem: the large number of species 

that have been improperly listed based on bad data. The Service acknowledges 19 

such mistakes. But a recent Heritage Foundation report shows that the actual number is far higher.35 The data reveal that approximately half of all domestic species 

45 

Backgrounder (Apr. 16, 2018), available at https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2018-04/ 

BG3300_0.pdf. 36See id. 37See id. 38See id. 39 Ecologists have long observed that scarce conservation funds are routinely misallocated. 

Most notably, they are doled out to charismatic species at far greater rates than less popular 

species. See Leah R. Gerber, Conservation triage or injurious neglect in endangered species 

recovery, PNAS (Mar. 29, 2016), available at http://www.pnas.org/content/113/13/3563. 

reported as ‘‘recovered’’ under the Endangered Species Act were not endangered in 

the first place but, instead, listed based on bad data which were subsequently corrected. If these de-listings were properly categorized, the number of species delisted 

for data error would dwarf the few recoveries. 

For instance, the Service listed the Hoover’s wooly star in 1989, speculating that 

there were as ‘‘few’’ as 35,000 to 300,000 of the plants.36 A full survey was only performed after the species was listed. According to the Service, the actual population 

size is approximately 135,000,000.37 Yet, despite this several-orders-of-magnitude 

error, the Service considered the de-listing as a recovery. It credited the listing as 

the impetus for the survey and then attributed the findings to the listing, even 

though the survey didn’t increase the size of the population but only revealed the 

error on which the listing was originally based.38

Species lingering on the lists dissipate resources from those species who need 

them. In the case of false-recoveries, for instance, the Service incurs years of postlisting monitoring. Given the limited funding for recovery efforts, such 

misallocations are unacceptable.39

The LIST Act’s solution to this problem could benefit from further clarification, 

however. The bill wisely directs the Service to act promptly when it determines that 

a species’ listing depends on a data error. However, it also authorizes the Secretary 

of the Interior to declare that a petitioner knew a petition contained inaccurate, 

fraudulent, or misrepresentative information and to deprive such a person of the 

right to submit petitions for 10 years. It’s not clear whether the aggrieved petitioner 

would have a right to judicial review of this determination, although she should before being denied such an important right. As discussed above, statutory bans on 

judicial review can be dangerous licenses for agencies to thwart Congress’ true aims. 

This broad grant of power to the Secretary raises the potential for mischief, which 

should concern both sides of this issue. The Secretary might abuse this power 

against environmental groups or industry petitioners, depending on the bureaucrats’ 

political views. Here, as is often the case, it’s best not to confer power to an executive branch official without first considering whether you’d want your fiercest opponent to wield it. Thankfully, concerns about petitioner foul-play could be addressed 

with less drastic means by, for instance, allowing the Service to consider a group’s 

past petitions in assessing the credibility of data presented in a subsequent petition. 

If a group has a history of malfeasance, that should be taken into consideration. But 

it may not always be dispositive. 

Finally, and somewhat repetitively, Congress should clarify the circumstances in 

which it intends to forbid judicial review—and should minimize such circumstances. 

The LIST Act provides that a ‘‘negative’’ finding, but not a ‘‘positive’’ one, under 

§ 2(b)(H)(i) is subject to judicial review. It’s not clear from the text whether this 

means judicial review is only available when the Service de-lists a species citing 

data error or instead only when it maintains the status quo. But, that ambiguity 

aside, judicial review should be available in either circumstance to ensure that the 

agency follows Congress’ intent under the bill. 

CONCLUSION

We need not tolerate the broken procedures I’ve described in my testimony. They 

benefit neither people nor endangered species, but instead harm both. Codifying the 

Obama administration’s backlog workplan is a sensible way to convert this temporary peace into a long-term improvement. Similarly, facilitating more de-listings 

is an effective way to ensure that limited conservation resources go to the species 

that need it. It also reduces the need for litigation brought by property owners to 

force the agencies to listen to their own scientists, which unnecessarily taxes both 

the property owners and the agencies. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, and I appreciate you all staying 

within the 5 minutes. 

46 

Committee Rule 3(d) allows questions from each Member of 5 

minutes. It doesn’t mean you have to ask a question for each bill. 

We are going to go through each bill one at a time. If you don’t 

have a question for that particular bill, we will just go by it and 

wait until we come to yours. 

I am going to recognize Members for questions on Tipton’s bill, 

the LOCAL Act, which, once again, codifies voluntary conservation 

efforts. 

I am going to take my first time, and I will yield to Mr. Tipton 

on your bill. You have up to 5 minutes. Questions only on your bill, 

though. Everything for this round, only on the LOCAL Act. Go for 

it. 

Mr. TIPTON. Since you are starting with the most important bill, 

I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Renkes, has the Department of the Interior actually used 

voluntary conservation practices in the past? 

Mr. RENKES. Yes. In fact, it is one of the most important tools 

that we have, and we have a number of different variants that create a little bit of an alphabet soup, if you are studying this. But 

they all work, and they work by incentivizing private landowners 

with assurances, regulatory assurances, and then working on conservation plans. 

We have a number of success stories involving this. One of those 

is the recovery of the Louisiana black bear. It was due in large part 

to conservation efforts by private forest owners, farmers, and landowners across the range of the species. Ninety percent of the 

species’ habitat is on private land and the recovery of that species 

was based on the use of these tools. 

So, the stronger they are, the better the conservation is going to 

be. 

Mr. TIPTON. Great. So, you have effectively had success trying to 

be collaborative with local landowners, in terms of being able to develop policies. Is it pretty much your opinion that is something that 

we ought to continue to be incentivizing? And what do you see that 

role being in the future? 

Mr. RENKES. We should definitely continue to find ways to 

incentivize local landowners. I think the way to look at this is we 

need to turn endangered species from liabilities into assets. Where 

I come from—which Congressman Young knows is Alaska, but 

more recently I live in Wyoming—you run into an endangered 

species approach from local landowners. They call it shoot, shovel, 

and shut up. And that is not good for species recovery. 

So, by creating incentive programs, voluntary incentive programs 

that you are discussing and the ones that the Department is using, 

we can change that paradigm and actually make the species conservation an asset for private landowners and states. 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Johansson, you are a farmer, somebody that actually works 

the land. Is it safe to be able to make the assumption that you 

actually care about where you live, want to be able to see species 

actually recover, it is part of the ecosystem that you rely on for 

your business? 

47 

Mr. JOHANSSON. Absolutely. Nothing gives us greater pride than 

seeing what we support on our land when it comes to wildlife. And 

certainly even for our kids, we know we are doing something right. 

Mr. TIPTON. When we talk about the ESA, I think there isn’t a 

person on this Committee that will dispute the intent of the ESA. 

We had the example of bald eagles being recovered, actually, on 

species recovery. But in terms of some of the actual practice over 

the period of time, have you seen that the ESA has hindered or 

helped the ability to be able to recover a species? 

Mr. JOHANSSON. Well, I think the thing that hinders farmers the 

most and the ranchers the most is just simply the fear of the Act, 

and the unknown, and not having those assurances that the steps 

we take in good faith, the steps we take that we owe our land and 

our family and taking care of everything on our land won’t be punished down the road with new regulations, new interpretations, or 

simply a new lawsuit. 

I think it has been a hindrance, but I look at the opportunities 

with your bill, H.R. 6344, that also codifying efforts, voluntary efforts that farmers and ranchers can take, really, to encourage 

them, also takes into account that one size doesn’t fit all farms. 

There are large farms, small farms, family farms, and even corporate farms. And all too often, we see that the opportunity to take 

further steps in preserving species and developing habitat, the 

small farmers simply cannot afford. 

We look at the tremendous success of farm bill, EQIP, working 

with the NRCS, also the RCDs, the resource conservation districts, 

in our areas. Tremendously supportive in California. We have been 

very successful. But not all farms can participate. And those programs generally are funded for about 3 years. 

What intrigues me most about your H.R. 6344, it begins to establish longer time frames that farmers will be rewarded, and don’t 

have to show instant success before funding runs out, but truly can 

look at the long-term vision, and also hope for their property, in 

terms of species recovery and habitat. 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, and I appreciate that. Some of the same 

circumstances we have in my district, we have different terrains, 

different circumstances. And we have seen, actually, positive responses working with Interior and others to be able to rehabilitate 

a species using real science and real local processes in a collaborative process. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing and I 

appreciate our panel for being here today. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Grijalva, do you have questions for the LOCAL Act? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK, you are recognized. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Before those questions, I would like to ask for 

unanimous consent to enter a letter into the record from Dr. Jane 

Goodall. If anybody could be called an expert on species conservation, it would be Dr. Goodall. She states in her letter, just one 

section, ‘‘The bills being discussed today would undermine these 

protections, and make it more difficult for endangered species to recover. Surely, we do not want to live in a world without the great 

apes, our closest living relatives in the animal kingdom, a world 

48 

where we can no longer marvel at magnificent flight of the bald 

eagles, or hear the howl of wolves under the moon, a world not enhanced by the sight of a grizzly bear and her cubs hunting for berries in the wilderness. What would our grandchildren think if these 

magical images were only to be found in books?’’ 

If no objection, I would like to enter that into the record, Mr. 

Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the letter and the words will 

be entered into the record. 

[The information follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. JANE GOODALL, FOUNDER, THE JANE GOODALL

INSTITUTE

Thank you for this opportunity to express my strong support for the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) and my strong opposition to the package of nine bills before the 

House Natural Resources Committee on September 26, 2018. It is my considered 

opinion that if these bills are passed it will undermine the scientific integrity of the 

Act and make it more difficult to protect and recover endangered species. 

We, as humans, are fortunate to share the Earth with such a magnificent diversity of life forms, but Earth’s biodiversity is dwindling at an alarming rate. In just 

over 100 years, the population of wild chimpanzees has dropped from an estimated 

1–2 million (probably closer to 2 million), to as few as 350,000, many of them living 

in fragmented patches of forest with little hope of long-term survival. This is only 

one example of the decline in the population of a species the same decline is evident 

in almost every species of wild animals including many in the United States. 

Indeed, we are experiencing what science describes as ‘‘The Sixth Great Extinction.’’ 

A 2017 study found that of the 27,600 land-based mammals, birds, amphibians and 

reptile species studied, nearly one-third are shrinking in terms of their population 

numbers and territorial ranges. In the last 40 years, we have lost about half of all 

wild animal species on Earth. Further, the rate of extinction is happening at about 

100 times faster than what would be expected from studies of the fossil record. 

Given this crisis, it is inconceivable to me that Members of Congress are spending 

time to discuss efforts to gut the most successful piece of legislation for combating 

species extinction when we should rather be working to strengthen it. We have a 

moral responsibility to protect the incredible life forms with which we share this 

planet for now and for future generations. 

Thanks to the ESA, we’ve been able, to some extent, to counter the rate of extinction. It has been estimated that over 200 species would have been wiped from our 

planet between 1973 and 2005 if it were not for the interventions of the ESA. 

Thanks to the ESA, 99 percent of listed species have survived and many more have 

been set on a path to recovery, including the iconic American Bald Eagle, the 

Grizzly Bear and the Florida Manatee. The ESA is one of the only pieces of legislation that has long prevented the unique American landscape from turning into 

barren wasteland and is one of the few that has provided critical protections to imperiled species worldwide—such as elephants and tigers, as well as marine 

mammals such as whales and turtles who migrate between international waters, 

thus necessitating international cooperation. 

The bills being discussed today would undermine these protections and make it 

more difficult for endangered species to recover. Surely, we do not want to live in 

a world without the great apes, our closest living relatives in the animal kingdom? 

A world where we can no longer marvel at the magnificent flight of bald eagles or 

hear the howl of wolves under the moon? A world not enhanced by the sight of a 

grizzly bear and her cubs hunting for berries in the wilderness? What would our 

grandchildren think if these magical images were only to be found in books? 

In addition to undermining the facts provided by science under the ESA, this 

package of bills would also transfer key authority of wildlife management to state 

officials who all too often lack the funding and sometimes the political will to adequately address the threats to imperiled species. These bills would also undercut 

citizen involvement in and enforcement of the ESA, further increasing the risk that 

species most at risk won’t be afforded vital Federal protections until it is too late. 

I urge you to reject this package of bills that would threaten species already at 

risk of disappearing forever, and instead only extend or increase protections under 

the Endangered Species Act to help secure adequate funding for projects to protect 

the world’s vanishing wildlife. 

49 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much, sir. 

Mr. Dreher, one of the bills you object to is the LOCAL Act, and 

that requires the government to pay landowners some kind of compensation whenever it appears that there are listed species on the 

land that would potentially lead to regulation. Can you explain 

why this is a bad idea, and what it would do to habitat conservation planning, generally, under ESA? 

Mr. DREHER. Yes, Mr. Grijalva. Let me start by saying that it 

has been a cherished dream of the far right in this country for decades to use the takings clause for just compensation of the Fifth 

Amendment as a means to put a brake on government regulation. 

They have a very simple perception, and that is that if you make 

government pay for every single thing it does, the government will 

shut down. That is what will happen under this provision. 

This provision, which is, essentially, a gold mine for speculators, 

would require the Secretary to pay any person that submitted a 

proposal for land use development on his or her property. If it, in 

fact, raised the risk of taking an endangered species, the Secretary 

would have to pay the full market value of that proposal. 

There is nothing to stop that applicant from submitting a similar 

proposal the next day, or continuing to submit these proposals. 

And, moreover, the applicant doesn’t need to actually invest in anything, but he gets the full market value of a projected scheme. So, 

if I wanted to make money quickly, this is what I would do, 

certainly. 

And the problem is that, of course, that money is apparently not 

coming out of the judgment fund. That money would come out of 

the ESA budget. So, I cannot think of a better way to collapse the 

effort to conserve endangered species than to create this incredible 

boondoggle to allow people to file speculative claims of land 

development. 

There are other problems with the LOCAL Act, I think. One of 

them is just this whole process of allowing property owners to request assurance letters from the Secretary. Among other things, to 

show how one-sided this bill is, it would automatically grant those 

requests at the end of 180 days—no matter how jammed the 

Secretary may be in responding to them—automatically grant 

them, regardless of whether they actually would take species. And 

then that authorization would give an exemption from take for 5 

years. 

So, I mean, this is really not written to conserve species. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Mr. Renkes, we didn’t have the opportunity to visit with you before. What role does your office play in 

the issues pertaining to ESA? 

Mr. RENKES. My office is involved in the analysis of legislation 

and regulations impacting the Department of the Interior, and we 

provide advice and analysis to the rest of the Department, across 

the entire spectrum of activities that take place at the Department. 

So, it is within that context that I am here today to comment on 

the nine bills. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. OK. Given that wide breadth of responsibility, 

how will the Secretary determine if owners claiming foregone use 

of the land due to ESA regulations have legitimate plans to implement the use claimed to be foregone—how will the Secretary 

50 

determine false claims for a foregone use under the authorities 

provided in this bill? 

How are you going to make those determinations of legitimacy 

and how do you establish fair-market value for any of those? 

Mr. DREHER. Obviously, those are important questions. The idea 

of incented conservation on private land is a powerful one, and can 

be an important driver. It obviously has to be something that has 

procedures involved, like a court takings proceeding would have to 

judge fair-market value and the legitimacy of the claim. 

We are standing ready to work with the Committee and the 

Committee staff on the bill to flesh out those details. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right, thank you. Now, questions to the 

LOCAL Act, just this bill. We will have the others later. 

Mr. Young, do you have questions for the LOCAL Act? 

Mr. YOUNG. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Mr. McClintock, questions for the 

LOCAL Act? 

Mr. Gosar, for the LOCAL Act? Yes, you are recognized. 

Dr. GOSAR. This is for Mr. Johansson and Mr. Sauter. From your 

experience in California and Washington State, what benefits are 

there to be gained for species conservation by the Federal Government coordinating with local governments and private entities? 

Mr. JOHANSSON. I would simply say, being from California, coordination between what our state government does and the 

Federal Government is imperative, because having our own Endangered Species Act in California, all too often we see the state and 

Federal Government not working hand in hand. 

So, we have to know the parameters of what is expected of us 

as we enter into these programs, how long we are expected to be 

in them, and then be able to measure the results that are 

measured fairly between the state government and the Federal 

Government. 

Mr. SAUTER. Thank you for the question, Congressman. Speaking 

from Washington’s perspective, at least the county perspective, 

there is a huge benefit for this collaboration to take place. When 

you collaborate at the local level, it really gives you access to information and data that these Federal agencies cannot necessarily get 

at, because of, I will call it a trust gap between local landowners 

and Federal agencies. 

As a local government guy, I can tell you that county government 

has great credibility and trust with its citizens, and we have numerous examples where we have been able to collaborate and get 

information and data to those Federal agencies that would not 

have happened if the county government was not involved. 

Dr. GOSAR. What does the government and what do potentially 

endangered species miss out on when that coordination fails to 

take place? 

Go in reverse order. 

Mr. SAUTER. Yes. I would just kind of reiterate that what happens is that you don’t have access to good data, or as complete of 

good data as you can have when you actually have local buy-in. 

And, as we all know, and I will tell you as a county commissioner, 

I need good information to make good decisions. 

Dr. GOSAR. Mr. Johansson? 

51 

Mr. JOHANSSON. I don’t have much more to add to that. Having 

been a former city councilman and working on a habitat conservation plan for our county, it was extremely difficult because you rely 

so heavily on data to put together an effective plan. 

And, going forward, collaboration is key. And that is all we ask 

for on our farms and ranches, is that, as we put these plans together, we have reliable information. And the source for that information doesn’t just have to come from a state agency. We also 

know, working with our private businesses, who also have an interest to keep their businesses going, the research they have done, all 

the way from trail cameras to employed wildlife biologists, those 

are the resources that we really need to access to make the right 

decisions. 

Dr. GOSAR. The key you made is buy-in. When you have buy-in 

on the local aspects, where they are thoughtful, and predicated 

that they are experienced and information is rewarded, it makes a 

big deal. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Sablan, to this local voluntary 

conservation bill? 

Mr. SABLAN. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Actually, 

I have a question on not just the LOCAL Act, but it embraces all 

the legislation we have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, do it one by one. Keep it to the LOCAL Act 

first, come on. 

Mr. SABLAN. OK, because it involves the right of citizens also to 

hold their government accountable. Thank you. 

The Endangered Species Act is especially important to my district, the Northern Mariana Islands, home to several unique 

species such as the Tinian monarch and the Marianas fruit bat. 

Additionally, there are 15 Indo-Pacific coral species listed by 

NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service as threatened under the 

Act, including two that have been clearly identified as living on the 

reefs of the Northern Marianas. 

Decisions whether to list a species that is endangered or threatened should be made based on science. Recently I joined letters to 

the Interior and Commerce Secretaries protesting Trump administration proposals to weaken the ESA and to House leadership to 

prevent provisions that undermine national conservation policy to 

be added to appropriations bills. 

I am particularly concerned about proposals that undermine citizens’ involvement in enforcement of the Act. Many of the positive 

ESA outcomes in my district have been generated by actions taken 

by my constituents. 

Mr. Dreher, is that correct? In your testimony, you state that the 

ESA has been successful because it gives individual citizens the 

right to hold agencies accountable for complying with the law. Can 

you discuss the importance of this right, and the way in which the 

bills before us today will diminish it? 

Mr. DREHER. I am happy to, Congressman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Just confine your comments to the LOCAL Act, 

though. 

52 

Mr. DREHER. The LOCAL Act, I don’t think, has provisions that 

limit judicial review. There are other bills that are before the 

Committee that would. 

The primary thing I think that you would be concerned about 

with the LOCAL Act is just the fact that it provides economic incentives and payment out of the ESA program, or out of the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund for conservation, which landowners 

are otherwise largely either required to do or incentivized to do 

under existing law. 

But this bill does not have, as I read it, restrictions—— 

Mr. SABLAN. So, my question would apply to which bill before us 

today? 

Mr. DREHER. Two of the bills that have strong restrictions on 

judicial review: the PETITION Act and the LIST Act. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Let him go on. 

Mr. SABLAN. My question has been asked. When you get to those 

two bills, please respond to them, if you will. 

Mr. DREHER. Thank you. 

Mr. SABLAN. Or submit your response for the record. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. You will have a chance to go on those bills when 

we hit those. Do you yield back? 

Mr. SABLAN. Yes, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. LaMalfa, for the LOCAL bill. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think at this point 

I will just submit a letter for the record from a local resource conservation district on the local level concept from the Pit Resource 

Conservation District of Bieber, California. 

They have been working with the Forest Service to develop a salvage sale in what is known as the 30,000-acre Cove Fire. They proposed to treat just 1,300 acres of the 30,000, as what they thought 

they could accomplish. They would have preferred to treat a much 

larger area, but given the time restraints, they chose to focus on 

an area of extreme importance to the landscape. 

This partnership, using a steward agreement that the RCD is 

working with the Forest Service in the area. They have an EA, an 

environmental assessment, under emergency situation determination signed by the chief. All NEPA requirements are met. And 

locals with RCD staff and local consultants have done the work and 

completed the effort. 

They put it out to bid, and only one bidder came in because of 

how long it took to get the process done and then award the bid. 

Then, last week, the RCD was notified that the Conservation 

Congress is planning to submit a lawsuit against the Forest Service 

with the intent of an immediate stop work order. The basis was not 

only unfounded, but numerous items stated in the court docket 

were not even factual. The Forest Service and the local RCD have 

been proactively working together with the contractor to prepare 

for the potential litigation and severe hardships placed on all 

parties. 

The Pit RCD is requesting support for this process to continue 

with the salvage that is very vital to forest health. 

I would like to submit this letter for the record, please, addressed 

to Secretary Zinke from Andy Albaugh, the Chairman of the Pit 

53 

Resource Conservation District, and the frustration it is with the 

locals trying to collaborate in an important project like this. 

I see Mr. Tipton’s bill would probably be quite beneficial in that, 

in moving this direction. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Huffman, to the LOCAL bill? 

OK. Mr. Westerman, to the LOCAL bill? 

OK. Mr. Gallego, the gentleman from Arizona. I am sorry, I mispronounced your name. Do you have questions for the LOCAL bill? 

Mr. Norman for the LOCAL bill? We are coming to yours next. 

All right, then let’s move on to the next one, which is H.R. 6360, 

the PREDICTS Act by Mr. Norman. 

I am going to offer you 5 minutes to explain your bill, and then 

see if you have questions for any of the witnesses about your particular piece of legislation. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RALPH NORMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

Mr. NORMAN. Thank you, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member 

Grijalva, and members of the Natural Resources Committee. Thank 

you for allowing me to come before you today and address the Committee. I am proud to be the sponsor of H.R. 6360, the PREDICTS 

Act. 

The PREDICTS Act is part of a larger legislative package to 

modernize the Endangered Species Act. As a whole, this package 

makes necessary and common-sense updates to the Endangered 

Species Act, the legislation that has only had one significant reform 

in the past 40 years. 

This package, this legislation, preserves the intent of the 

Endangered Species Act, and provides for the protection of endangered species conservation, while also making improvements to the 

Endangered Species Act that increases transparency, includes 

states in the decision-making process, and brings accountability to 

the decisions to list or de-list a species as an endangered species. 

Specifically, the PREDICTS Act codifies the No Surprises regulation which provides certainty and rewards the good behavior of 

public and private entities that faithfully uphold their agreement 

to help recover endangered species. 

This regulation was put in place after agencies responsible for 

endangered species conservation realized they were not doing as 

great of a job recovering a species as they would like. And to compensate, these agencies were attempting to retroactively change 

habitat conservation plans. This ‘‘No Surprises regulation’’ was promulgated in response to these actions, and simply maintains that 

it was improper to put new mandates on entities that were faithfully and effectively implementing previously agreed-to habitat 

conservation plans. 

The PREDICTS Act highlights the fact that affected species 

conservation can co-exist with project permitting and economic development. But public and private entities go through a rigorous 

process to create habitat conservation plans with the Fish and 

Wildlife Service prior to being given a permit. In fact, in creating 

these plans, the applicant is required to identify all foreseeable 

54 

ways in which a project and its operations may impact species and 

account for that. 

The PREDICTS Act simply ensures that after a plan is agreed 

to and these public and private entities are executing the plans in 

good faith, the changes to the plans cannot be made retroactively. 

In essence, this legislation prevents the imposition of new mandates, and recognizes that faithful and effective compliance with an 

agreement should not be answered with changes that can be costly 

and burdensome and creates an added layer of uncertainty. 

This legislation also codifies two other existing programs found 

in Federal agency handbooks, the Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances, the CCA, and the Safe Harbor 

Agreements, the SHA. 

Participants in the CCA program voluntarily agree to take actions with the intention of reducing threats to specific species that 

are not currently on the endangered species list so that species are 

protected and do not need to be added to the list. 

Participants in the SHA program enter into voluntary 

agreements to take actions to help endangered species recover. 

Both of these programs allow for participants to aid in the protection of species, and the PREDICTS Act will allow them to rely 

on the agreements they enter into. 

In summary, the PREDICTS Act codifies the requirements for 

habitat conservation plans, Candidate Conservation Agreements 

with Assurances, and Safe Harbor Agreements already found in 

agency regulations. This legislation provides certainty and rewards 

the good behavior of both public and private entities that uphold 

their agreements to help recover species while promoting project 

permitting and economic development. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Let me ask a couple of questions on 

this particular Act first. 

Mr. Renkes, when the Clinton era No Surprises rule took effect, 

has it had, in your estimation, some positive impact on survival 

and recovery of listed species? 

Mr. RENKES. Yes, it has had a dramatic impact. In fact, prior to 

that policy coming into effect, there were very few of these agreements entered into. And then I think they had increased by nearly 

10-fold. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me come back to you, then. 

Mr. Johansson, let me ask you the next question. Why was there 

hesitancy on farmers, ranchers, those kinds of people to enter in 

these agreements before this rule was put into effect? 

Mr. JOHANSSON. I mean, quite simply, it was a lack of predictability in the program, and confidence that they wouldn’t be punished for taking the right answer should they be successful, leading 

to other species on their land, as well. 

So, I think the No Surprises rule had a positive impact on 

farmers and ranchers turning toward those programs. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Mr. Renkes, let me come back to you, then. 

This is still rule status, correct? 

Mr. RENKES. That is correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. So, if we pass this bill, it codifies what is the 

rule, so it cannot be adjudicated or changed later on. 

55 

Mr. RENKES. That is correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. And do you think, as a representative from the 

Department, that that codification would have a positive impact? 

Mr. RENKES. Absolutely, because it increases certainty. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Thank you. Let me yield back. 

Mr. Grijalva, do you have any questions on this one? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes. Thank you. 

Mr. Dreher, what are your main concerns or considerations the 

Committee should consider in this piece of legislation that is before 

us now? 

Mr. DREHER. Thank you, Congressman. I do have several concerns. I think the biggest one, the Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances, the Safe Harbor Provisions, those have 

been embodied in Department of the Interior regs for many years. 

People understand how they work. There are some small changes 

here that make it more restrictive, make it harder to terminate 

them. 

For example, obviously, under the Fish and Wildlife Service regs, 

you can terminate for failing to comply with an agreement or for 

violating the law. Those things aren’t embodied in this agreement. 

The big thing about this, though, is that it applies to habitat conservation plans. The other two programs both deal with voluntary 

incentivized conservation, one for candidate species that are not yet 

protected, another, the Safe Harbor Agreement, if you manage 

habitat so that it attracts listed species onto your property that 

weren’t there before. 

But habitat conservation plans are plans that actually involve 

development that affects and may harm endangered species. And 

these kinds of assurances throw out the actual point of the HCP. 

A habitat conservation plan has to ensure that the species in fact 

doesn’t go extinct, that it isn’t actually harmed because of changed 

circumstances. And it is essential that HCPs actually provide a 

benefit to the species. 

It is like mixing apples and oranges, but in the worst way, because HCPs involve listed species that are actually being harmed 

by a proposed development. The other two policies are to 

incentivize conservation agreements for the benefit of species. So, 

there is a huge difference. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McClintock, to this bill? 

Mr. Gosar, to this bill? 

Dr. GOSAR. Yes. Mr. Dreher, you have had opposition to all the 

bills in this package, which should come as no surprise to anybody 

given the group that you work for. You even spoke against this 

PREDICTS Act, which codifies the Clinton administration’s 1998 

No Surprises rule. 

Can you name me one reform to the ESA, other than throwing 

money at the problems that you help cause, that the Defenders of 

Wildlife have pursued through congressional legislation and supported over the last 30 years? 

Mr. DREHER. Sorry, Congressman, over how long? 

Dr. GOSAR. Thirty years. 

56 

Mr. DREHER. The last 30 years, we were certainly instrumental 

in supporting the revisions to the Endangered Species Act—— 

Dr. GOSAR. Be specific. 

Mr. DREHER. It was before my time. 

Dr. GOSAR. I am all ears. We are all ears. You are very prophetic 

and very detailed. I like the details. 

Mr. DREHER. Well, I do not go back far enough with Defenders 

of Wildlife to tell how far back we did what we did 30 years ago 

when the Act was last amended——— 

Dr. GOSAR. Well, what I would like, as a nice project for you, is 

to list those out for the Committee, so that we—— 

Mr. DREHER. I will be happy to submit that for the record. 

Dr. GOSAR. Thank you. 

Mr. DREHER. I will say that we work constantly to try to improve 

the implementation of the Act, and we work very closely with landowners, with state governments, and with Federal Government 

agencies to try to improve the implementation of the Act. We have 

a whole department at Defenders of Wildlife that develops better 

scientific methods for implementing the Act. 

Dr. GOSAR. We will come back to that one. I am ready for that 

one. Thank you. 

Mr. DREHER. All right. Thank you, Congressman. 

Dr. GOSAR. We will look forward to your response. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Sablan, do you have questions for this PREDICTS Act? 

Mr. LaMalfa, for this one? 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to turn to the 

California Farm Bureau president, Mr. Johansson, on this bill. We 

do many things in agriculture that also have the double benefit, 

whether you are conserving habitat, whether just by the type of 

crop you are operating, a lot of time in rice it indeed is a much parallel habitat benefit at the same time. 

How beneficial do you think this proposed legislation would be, 

in light of what we have seen with farmers leaving land fallow, 

whether it is economics, or they are just giving the land a rest, and 

then finding out that they cannot plant their land back without a 

very onerous permit process, or being sued, et cetera. 

Mr. JOHANSSON. That certainly is a fear right now that farmers 

live with. We have seen that happen in Tehama County, particularly with a wheat field that hadn’t been farmed for about 6 or 7 

years, and then, when he went back on there, ran into trouble with 

water issues, as well, Clean Water Act, and all of that. 

One of the things that we have to do is, and this is the problem 

with these programs, it has to have the flexibility in those programs to understand that farming and ranching up and down— 

particularly farming—and that oftentimes we don’t have the water 

supply. And coming off historic droughts in California, we do fallow 

the land, because we were not given the water, perhaps, because 

we couldn’t send them through the pumps down in the south, based 

on the delta smelt or salmon numbers, and when we pump water. 

I think, again, we want to do the right thing for our land. And 

if we don’t have regulatory certainty, we are going to make bad decisions for our farms, and we are going to make bad decisions for 

our environment and the species on there. 

57 

I know you are familiar with the efforts being done with salmon 

restoration in rice fields, and the multiple benefits of our rice 

fields, not only for the rice that we eat, but also in flood protection 

at times, and also in salmon habitat recovery, and then also increasing our number of salmon, and some pretty innovative uses of 

our rice industry, which, if you remember, had the black mark of 

burning their rice every fall and winter, but has really turned it 

around with unique programs. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Certainly being able to bail the rice straw and 

find markets for it has been very positive, as an alternative. But 

you do run into a disincentive, whether you are allowing habitat 

to grow on its own, or setting aside, and then maybe you have to 

do something to manage that habitat, and then someone comes 

along and says no, you now cannot touch that, which causes disincentive to people not allowing it to grow to begin with in ditches 

or other areas of their land. 

So, with what you see coming on Waters of the United States 

and, again, the lawsuits that happened in Tehama County, what 

is the general feeling of agriculture on whether this legislation will 

be helpful, or some of the others in the package, or the general direction that the regulatory agencies are going? 

Mr. JOHANSSON. I think the general feeling that any farmer and 

rancher in California wants is to be able to look out over his property and know for sure what needs to be done, not only to be farming successful, but how to take care of species, as well as ensure 

clean water. I think that is the biggest frustration right now, is our 

own land. We see it one way, and there is a big fear that regulators 

may see it another way, and have other designs on it. 

One of the issues we have with habitat conservation plans is also 

we see a lot of water irrigation districts entering into them, because as they clean their waterways from weeds, and as they clean 

out their irrigation ditches, that may also disturb endangered 

species that have grown up in those ditches, so they also have to 

enter. And that is something that really—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. We are talking man-made ditches? 

Mr. JOHANSSON. Absolutely, man-made ditches put in by an irrigation district that also has to participate. It is not just the farms 

that have to participate in our land, it is also our irrigation districts that have to pay that cost, as well. 

Mr. LAMALFA. How about the development of habitat conservation plans that rely on the farmer tying up his or her land maybe 

into perpetuity. I have seen that, where bureaucracies want that 

so that they can gain long-term predictability for their own ends, 

such as transportation projects, using the land, the farm land, as 

their habitat plan. What do you think about that? 

Mr. JOHANSSON. The most important part of any habitat conservation plan—and having gone through one in Butte County and 

the difficulties and difference of opinions—is local control, and 

farmers being able to determine what is best for them. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right, thank you. 

Mr. Westerman, to this Act, the PREDICTS? 

Mr. Bergman, to the PREDICTS Act? 

58 

Thank you. All right, we will now turn to the next—oh, I am 

sorry, Mr. Costa, I didn’t ask you if you had one for this Act, 

PREDICTS. 

Mr. COSTA. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Then we will turn to the next one, which is 

H.R. 6346, the WHOLE Act by Mr. Johnson, who is not here to 

present it. Let me just ask two questions, then, very quickly about 

this and see if anyone else has questions about this one. 

Mr. Wood, let me ask you on this particular one, the WHOLE 

Act, then, how does this bill build upon existing cumulative impact 

analysis? 

Mr. WOOD. The WHOLE Act essentially clarifies that cumulative 

impact analysis cuts both ways. And that makes a lot of sense. 

When an agency is looking at a particular project, it should consider that in the context of everything else going on, whether everything else is good or bad for a species, and let that count toward 

the project. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Then let me go to Mr. Sauter. Commissioner, can you give me an example, just one example of some kind 

of habitat designation that would have been helped, especially one 

that was maybe economically crippling, that could have been prevented or helped if this Act, the WHOLE Act, were in place? 

Mr. SAUTER. Yes, thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. I 

can think of a couple of different ones, but I will focus on probably 

the spotted owl, as one that could have been helped. Also, we had 

the example of the Oregon spotted frog. We have a lot of spotted 

animals, apparently, in Washington State that could have been 

helped by this. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, I appreciate that. 

I yield back. Mr. Grijalva, specifically to this one? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

Mr. Renkes, I noticed in your testimony that the Department of 

the Interior has concerns with this particular piece of legislation, 

the WHOLE Act. Can you explain what those are? 

Mr. RENKES. Yes, thank you. The bill codifies our current consultation practice, and we support it. The off-site mitigation idea 

can be effective. We want to work with the Committee on the details of how this can work for designated critical habitat. Currently, 

mitigation has reserved two areas designated as critical habitat, 

and we like the idea of off-site mitigation. Obviously, the use of 

mitigation banks has been effective in other circumstances, and we 

look forward to working with the Committee to see how we can 

work that out. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Dreher, do you find it concerning that this 

legislation requires the Secretary to consider all additional positive 

measures in determining jeopardy, but does not require the 

Secretary to consider the cumulative impacts to a species from 

other activities? And what other concerns might you have with this 

legislation? 

Mr. DREHER. Well, I do. I think that legislation—the issue with 

mitigation is, of course, the extent to which it is reliable, the extent 

to which it is binding, the extent to which it is funded, the extent 

to which it will actually be effective in overcoming these things. 

59 

The bill doesn’t address the evaluation of the reliability of mitigation at all. 

Beyond that, the concern that the Department of the Interior has 

raised, I think, is a very significant one. Federal agencies are required by section 7 to avoid destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat. And if they are doing that, and they are conserving 

lesser-value habitat somewhere else that isn’t designated as critical 

habitat, I think it raises serious legal questions about how they 

could actually comply with section 7’s mandate. If they are actually 

damaging critical habitat, the practice of the Department of the 

Interior to date has been that if there is any offsetting conservation, it should be with critical habitat. So, it is apples to apples. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. McClintock, do you have any questions for this bill? 

Mr. Gosar, for this bill? 

Dr. GOSAR. Yes. I would like to have Congressman Johnson’s 

statement put into the record in its entirety, please. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. MIKE JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

I would like to thank the Chairman and the members of this Committee for 

having the fortitude to consider the various Endangered Species Act (ESA) reforms 

before us today. 

When Congress passed the Endangered Species Act over four decades ago, it was 

because they recognized the importance of conserving, protecting and valuing 

species whose very existence was threatened. The spirit of the law and deep appreciation for preserving these species remains alive and well today. We cannot, however, allow the fear of challenging the status quo prevent us from taking a hard look 

at the ineffective policies put in place decades ago that have failed to meet the goals 

of the underlying legislation. 

Proponents of preserving this antiquated law despite its obvious failings do a disservice to both the listed species, as well as the surrounding communities. The truth 

is, while 99 percent of the species classified as threatened or endangered have not 

gone extinct, the recovery management plans have failed to provide the species with 

the opportunity to actually grow and thrive. To that extent, barely 3 percent of the 

populations listed are considered to have rebounded and thus remain on the threatened or endangered lists. Three percent is nowhere near the rate of success we 

should expect and further illustrates the need for modifications to the ESA. 

In addition to failing to help listed species recover, the ESA imposes many 

burdensome and duplicative regulations on America’s hardworking farmers and 

ranchers. Absent reforms, the ESA will continue to adversely impact their ability 

to provide food not only to America, but to those all around the world. And to exacerbate the problem, activist groups are employing sue-and-settle tactics to further 

their ideological agenda and increase the number of species listed under the ESA. 

As the list grows, however, farmers and ranchers are forced to shift their primary 

focus from safe food production to navigating and complying with bureaucratic hurdles that threaten their livelihoods. 

My bill would require the Secretary to consider the totality of conservation measures already in place, when determining whether a potential Federal action will 

jeopardize species or habitat loss. Our Nation’s farmers and ranchers are already 

active participants in conservation programs and in implementing protections and 

mitigation factors on their land to protect habitat and wildlife. Despite our 

agriculture community proactively promoting conversation measures and seeking 

guidance from the USDA on best practices, the ESA continues to expand far beyond 

the original intent of the law. 

The time has come for Congress to modernize the ESA, and to that end, my bill, 

the WHOLE Act, takes a holistic approach to protecting species and preserving 

habitats. This legislation will ultimately help our Nation’s farmers and ranchers get 

back to doing what they do best—providing a safe, sustainable food source for 

60 

1Thoman, Mary A. ‘‘Yellowstone grizzly bears are not an endangered species—but ranchers 

like me are.’’ USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 29 Aug. 2018. 

Americans. The bipartisan WHOLE Act has received over 160 national endorsements, and I urge my colleagues to support this critical piece of legislation. 

Dr. GOSAR. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. LaMalfa, to this Act? 

Mr. Westerman, to this Act? 

Mr. Bergman, to this Act? 

Mr. Costa, to this Act? 

Mr. COSTA. I am sorry, which bill? 

The CHAIRMAN. The WHOLE, Johnson’s H.R. 6354. No? 

Mr. Sablan, no? 

Mr. Gallego, no? 

OK, then let us turn to the next one, which is H.R. 6354. 

Mr. Gosar, you are recognized to introduce your bill. 

Dr. GOSAR. I will just put my opening statement into the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gosar follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL A. GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Good morning. Today, we are here to discuss in-depth the nine bills that comprise 

a bipartisan legislative package that will bring the Endangered Species Act into the 

21st century. We call it the Western Caucus ESA Modernization Package after the 

79-Member Caucus I chair, but it’s a package that applies evenly across the entire 

country. Moreover, it has the support from 165+ organizations ranging from the 

American Farm Bureau, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association 

of Realtors, American Loggers Council, Safari Club International, the National 

Association of Conservation Districts, Western Energy Alliance, Americans for 

Limited Government, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the National Association 

of Home Builders, the National Association of Counties, the National Water 

Resources Association and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, just 

to name a few. 

The Endangered Species Act serves a noble purpose that is necessary to the 

conservation of many species. However, it is clear that this legislation has fallen 

short of its intended goal. A less than 3 percent recovery rate for endangered species 

is anything but the mark of a successful law. 

With this in mind, our members came together to address point by point many 

of the shortcomings of the Endangered Species Act. Our bipartisan legislative package offers much needed legislative improvements that not only assist the law in 

meeting its original purpose of conserving and recovering endangered species and 

their habitats, but also does not stand in the way of economic development and job 

creation that is beneficial to the American people. Species conservation and economic development are not zero-sum. They are both attainable goals that can be 

accomplished. 

What is even more important is that the Endangered Species Act works for people, not against them. Unfortunately, many hardworking Americans throughout the 

country have felt the inefficiencies of this law firsthand. One such person is Mary 

Thoman, a rancher from Wyoming. In a USA Today Op-Ed she wrote on August 

29, 2018 entitled, ‘‘Yellowstone grizzly bears are not an endangered species—but 

ranchers like me are,’’ she writes, ‘‘Special interest groups are suing the Federal 

Government to have the grizzly bear population in and around Yellowstone National 

Park returned to the endangered species list—contrary to the recommendations of 

research. If those special interest groups succeed, state and local officials will no 

longer be able to effectively manage the population that lives in their backyards. 

And grizzlies are bound to grow too numerous and pose a greater threat to those 

who live in the area.’’ 1 As a result of the special protections given to the grizzly 

bear population, Marry Thoman was forced to give up the grazing lands that their 

family had ranched on since 1978. This is unacceptable and unfortunately, indicative of the current issues with the law. 

61 

Sadly, the current processes under the law have enabled gross exploitation by 

special interest groups that stand to profit from abusing the current system. An 

authorized agency should not be forced to allocate most of its resources on combating litigation, it should be focused on protecting and recovering species. Moreover, hardworking Americans like Mary should not be forced from the lands that 

they have worked on for decades because of special interest groups that stand to 

profit from listing species that are not endangered. Stories like Mary Thoman’s are 

why Americans are coming together to support the legislation being discussed here 

today—legislation that will offer clarity, flexibility, and assistance for authorized 

agencies, state, local and tribal officials, and everyday Americans. 

Our Nation is blessed with an abundance of biodiversity and a richness in species 

distribution across the 50 states and territories. Everyone here agrees with the 

premise that we must make all reasonable efforts to protect species facing extinction. Agreeing on that premise means that we can go forward in good faith to analyze and propose improvements of the Endangered Species Act to the benefit of all 

involved parties—species, industry, government and citizenry alike. It’s an issue 

that pits every interest imaginable against one another, but our job as Federal legislators is to balance these interests appropriately and enshrine that proper balance 

in legislation. 

We believe to have done just that with this bipartisan legislative package. I appreciate all the Western Caucus, Natural Resources and other Members who have 

invested in this package and contributed to making it a success. I am grateful for 

the support of the more than 165 stakeholders and organizations throughout the 

country. 

I thank Chairman Bishop and his team for all their hard work on these bills and 

for hosting today’s hearing, and with that I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Then I will yield my time to you. Do you 

have questions for these witnesses on your Act? 

OK. Mr. Young, to this one? 

Mr. McClintock, to this one? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. LaMalfa, to this one? 

Mr. LAMALFA. Which one? 

The CHAIRMAN. The STORAGE. 

Mr. Westerman, no? 

Mr. Bergman? 

Mr. Grijalva? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. I am going to leave the dead horse be. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Costa to this one, STORAGE? OK. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for 

holding this hearing, and I think it is really time the Committee 

take a serious look at modifications of the Endangered Species Act. 

I would like to thank those who are testifying here today for your 

insight and your perspective, specifically a good friend that I have 

worked with for many years, Jamie Johansson from the California 

Farm Bureau. Having been a member of the California Farm 

Bureau for over 30 years, I have worked with you and folks for 

many years. 

Because of the number of bills that we have before us and the 

limited time for the hearing, I want to just speak generally about 

the bills. 

The Endangered Species Act, obviously, I think as most of the 

witnesses noted, has laudable goals. We ought to be able to be good 

stewards of the environment and ensure that we don’t act in ways 

in which species go extinct. But clearly, I think with climate 

change and other factors, species go extinct, and that is just a reality. And while the ESA has been passed and implemented for 

62 

four decades now with the best of intentions, like any legislation 

or law, it is not perfect, and I think it is time we take a serious 

look at how we can improve it and reform it. 

And I say that to my Democratic friends, as well as to my colleagues on the other side. The fact is, I think the way it operates 

today, it is a blunt tool. And I know firsthand from a lot of experiences that I have been involved in the San Joaquin Valley in 

California, who have been harmed by the application of the Endangered Species Act, limiting the movement of water in California, 

resulting in the fallowing of farm land, reduced economic productivity that has all sorts of socio-economic effects in farm communities with both farm workers and farmers, crime, social ills, 

unemployment, and you can go on. 

There are several pieces of legislation, I think, that have good 

ideas before us. I think they need some refinement. And members 

of the Committee, I think trying to develop a process in which we 

can work together in a bipartisan way is going to be the key as to 

whether or not we have success. Underlying the STORAGE Act, 

which we have before us right now, the LOCAL Act and the 

PREDICTS Act, I think deserve consideration and further 

refinement. 

In addition to one important concern that I have regarding the 

future of the ESA, is that there is little accommodation for the Act 

impacts to non-migratory aquatic species whose ecosystems are 

being modified by the impact of climate change and loss of other 

factors that have created greater damage. Some of these, in some 

cases, they have gone too far to save. Our economic attempts of trying to save them is likely to fail, like the discussion of trying to return a spring run of salmon to the San Joaquin River in which 

water temperatures are a big issue. 

So, let me ask some questions. Mr. Johansson, you talked about 

both the delta smelt and the salmon as examples in your testimony. And we know that the State Water Board is looking at 

unimpeded flows to improve the water quality for the fisheries. But 

they are discounting the impacts of lack of habitat, they are discounting invasive species, they are discounting non-discharges into 

the waters. 

How do we strive to create a balance if we are going to fix some 

of these problems without taking into account all of the science? 

Mr. JOHANSSON. I think we are doing that on our own right now, 

in agriculture, having gone through what we did with the delta 

smelt and the biological opinions—a biological opinion, by the way, 

that also relied on intuition, in which the species was managed 

through intuition, which was very disturbing to us, as someone 

who always has to demonstrate that our farms operate on sound 

science and proven science. 

I bring to fact, and it is very close to Congressman LaMalfa’s 

farm there, a rice ranch there that had a situation with a spring 

run chinook salmon that only averaged about maybe 10 salmon a 

year coming up the Butte Creek. Proactively, understanding that 

maybe some of their water diversions may be having an impact, 

that water district took the proactive approach to start to fix their 

infrastructure, and now actually get about 10,000 salmon a year 

coming up there. So, we are doing that. 

63 

We are also doing that, as I mentioned earlier, in our rice fields, 

in terms of creating that habitat. 

Mr. COSTA. Right. 

Mr. JOHANSSON. And trying to demonstrate that, as the Water 

Board talks about flows, it is not about flows, it is about functional 

flows, and making sure that that water is released at the right 

time, based on that species. But we have allowed the Endangered 

Species Act in addressing salmon to come into just a small box and 

not look at what really is going on in the entire ecosystem. 

Mr. COSTA. Right. And thankfully, your testimony—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK [presiding]. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. I know, my time has expired, but—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Further questions on H.R. 6354? 

Further questions, any others on the Republican side? 

Dr. GOSAR. I am going to be last. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. OK, well, you are going to be last, then. I am 

going to claim time and yield to Mr. Gosar. 

Dr. GOSAR. Mr. Dreher, since 1976, your organization, the 

Defenders of Wildlife, have been the litigant in 510 lawsuits. How 

many dollars in attorney’s fees has the Defenders of Wildlife collected as a result of litigation against the Federal Government? 

Mr. DREHER. I will be happy to provide that number for you. I 

have no idea, sitting here today. 

Dr. GOSAR. We will expect that for the record. 

Mr. DREHER. I will say that it is an infinitesimal part of our 

budget. It does not factor into our budgeting—— 

Dr. GOSAR. No, I am a believer that the facts set us free. 

Mr. DREHER. Yes. 

Dr. GOSAR. You contradict yourself in your written statement by 

saying you support science-based process for the ESA, and that is 

why you oppose the LIST Act, yet you oppose H.R. 3608, which requires public availability on the Internet of the best scientific and 

commercial data available for the ESA decisions. 

It seems like you like cherry-picking your science. Your allegation against the LIST Act is baseless, by the way, as that bill actually allows for the totality of science to be considered. Why does 

your organization hate science? 

Mr. DREHER. You know, Congressman, we call it as we see it. We 

object to legislation—— 

Dr. GOSAR. Well, I find it very interesting that you like to cherrypick, because that is the perfect term for what you actually do—— 

Mr. DREHER. We object to provisions that we think, in fact, are 

objectionable. We object to legislation that we think, in fact, disserves the purposes of the Act. 

It is not our fault if the legislation that is before us we think is 

bad for the ESA. That is our job to call that out. 

Dr. GOSAR. Let me ask you a question, then. That goes back to 

my previous question. What have you supported to change that legislation in the better for the critters? 

Mr. DREHER. Well, I don’t know—— 

Dr. GOSAR. And you couldn’t do that for me. You couldn’t site a 

single example. Yet, you are articulate about everything else. 

64 

Mr. DREHER. And I think that is a commentary on the partisan 

nature of the dialogue right now about the ESA, and it has been 

a highly partisan issue for 20 years. 

There have not been bills put forward by the Congress that 

actually would serve the purposes of ESA, and so we have not supported those bills. 

Dr. GOSAR. That is your opinion. 

Mr. DREHER. Yes. 

Dr. GOSAR. But to the gentlemen to your left and right, that is 

quite opposite, in contrary, and a number of people on this dais up 

here. We are not against critters. We want to see this work. We 

want to see that make it forward. So, we have to start looking at 

the people standing in the way, and that is you. 

Let me go further. You testify that the ESA was a proven success, and tried to brag about its success rate. This is another lie. 

The Committee points out that one of the mammals—and I quote— 

‘‘In the 45 years since its enactment, less than 2 percent of species 

have recovered enough to warrant removal from the list of endangered and threatened species.’’ 

Did you fail algebra? I am a healthcare provider, and if I have 

a success rate like that, something is wrong. Something is wrong 

with that. I want to go back to raise that number. So, I should be 

doing everything I possibly could with the people to my left and the 

people to my right to make a success story. 

That is why, when you start looking at prime examples like the 

Mexican gray wolf, where the courts actually had to intervene because of the management plan, if that is the management plan we 

were going with, no wonder the Mexican gray wolf can’t be a success story. It is unbelievable, just unbelievable. 

You testified that these bills are, and I quote, ‘‘all to benefit a 

minority of special interests in a few states.’’ I take offense to that. 

I would encourage you to look at our website and review the list 

of the 166 stakeholders throughout the country that are supporting 

these bills. Is the Florida Farm Bureau Federation from the West? 

No. How about the Missouri Sheep Producers? How about the 

National Association of Realtors? Are they really solely in the 

West? How about the U.S. Chamber, are they solely in the West? 

And by the way, what is your disdain for the West? 

Mr. DREHER. I have no disdain for the West. I think—— 

Dr. GOSAR. Your actions seem to predicate it. 

Mr. DREHER. I do not mean to suggest any disdain for any part 

of the country. I think the commitment the American people have 

to the ESA is something that is nationally felt. 

I think there are particular circumstances in the West, including 

the predominance of federally owned land, and the long-standing 

sort of resentment in the West toward the presence of the Federal 

Government that exacerbate concerns over the ESA. And I do think 

that the concerns over the ESA in some instances are higher in 

some places in the West. But that is not in any way denigrating 

the sensibilities of the people that live in the West. That is an issue 

that we need to work with proactively. 

We should be trying to find solutions, as you say, Congressman. 

And we try very hard to find solutions. We actually pay for, for example, range riders to try to protect people’s cattle from wolves and 

65 

grizzly bears. We engage constantly in this sort of cooperative 

behavior. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Sablan. 

Mr. SABLAN. I would like to yield my time to Mr. Costa, please. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Costa is recognized. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much. Mr.—is it Dreher? 

Mr. DREHER. It is Dreher, sir. 

Mr. COSTA. OK, I concur with you, I think we all recognize that 

the ESA, the Endangered Species Act, has become very political 

over the last two decades. 

From your perspective, would you, shortly, because I want to get 

to some other questions—have you recommended changes to deal 

with science, as it has changed over the last four decades, and implementation, and regulation, process, and court rulings? Do you or 

part of your coalition just like it the way it is? You think it works? 

Mr. DREHER. Congressman, I think there is a myth that the Act, 

because it is old, is outdated, as if it is a—— 

Mr. COSTA. I didn’t say that. I didn’t say that. 

Mr. DREHER. I know. I am trying to respond to your question, sir. 

I mean it is part of what other people say about the bill. 

I think that the structure of the Act itself is very straightforward and does not need changing. What it actually needs is to 

be well implemented. We focus a great deal of attention on how to 

improve the implementation of the Act so that it works better for 

species and for stakeholders, and we could demonstrate that that 

makes a difference. But it needs to be funded. 

Mr. COSTA. OK. But we have had administrations that have 

funded it better than other administrations. 

I think there are two criticisms that I would raise. One is that 

I don’t think there is a good accounting—with all the changes in 

our environment, what is the art of the possible. 

I just think this notion that somehow—there has been a lot of 

science on salmon in the Northwest, all the way up to the Alaska 

Peninsula, and how in some areas, with climate change, you are 

just not going to restore that. Would you agree or disagree? 

Mr. DREHER. I think climate change is unsettling a lot of our 

expectations. You are absolutely right. Conservationists—— 

Mr. COSTA. And I think we need to take that into account. 

Mr. DREHER. I agree. 

Mr. COSTA. I think this whole effort is a balancing act. And I 

think you have to get the best bang for your buck. We have to 

make some—I mean, we are going to have some agricultural land 

that is going to go out of production. Nobody likes that. That is the 

reality, in terms of our water supply. 

But there is no accounting on the other end as to what species 

you can save and which you cannot. And that is where I think my 

criticism rises. 

Mr. Johansson, you talked again about the science that we are 

dealing with, and water issues in California. The fact is that we 

are trying to come together now on some compromises on fixing a 

broken water system in California. What do you think is the outlook in the next 4 months as to whether or not this host of issues 

on the delta, the water fix, and other issues involving the ESA, the 

66 

likelihood that we are going to be able to work through the current 

challenges? 

Mr. JOHANSSON. I think, unfortunately, we have a situation with 

the ESA, where it is the initial blunt instrument that stops us, and 

that is—— 

Mr. COSTA. That is what I said in my comments. That is what 

you said. 

Mr. JOHANSSON. That is what stops us from pumping. But it goes 

from there, because it goes all the way up into the upper watershed 

in our Sierras. And the inability to manage our forests and our 

public lands properly because of, again, the Endangered Species 

Act. So, therefore, the water doesn’t make it down to the river. 

But also, too, it stops us—we just really haven’t looked at the 

science. And it allows someone who may want to send more water 

to the ocean, or divert it to whatever purposes they deem more important, but aren’t looking at the fact that it isn’t just flows that 

provide the smelt with benefit. That is, the dangers to the smelt 

come from other biological purposes, as well, not just—— 

Mr. COSTA. That is why re-consultation of the opinions is very 

important right now. 

Mr. JOHANSSON. Absolutely. And, I think that is the struggle 

ahead of us in California, is how do we proactively get around this 

ESA by doing efforts up in our forests and in our rice fields and 

on our farms that help us get around the ESA and try to demonstrate that we can do this, that the old logic, or how we look biologically at the fish in the stream, there really are different options 

that farmers can participate—— 

Mr. COSTA. And as you noted in your comments, the better management of our forest lands, the better issue of healthier forests, 

and less of these horrific fires that we have had to deal with in recent years all over the West. 

Mr. JOHANSSON. We have created a situation in California where 

either we are under water or on fire. We are letting these extremes 

take over because we are not appropriately dealing with what is 

happening on the ground and what we can do better. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Further questions on H.R. 6354? 

On the Republican side? 

Mr. Gallego. 

Mr. GALLEGO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. Dreher, we kind of touched on this earlier, when you were 

talking specifically about these bills would take a wrecking ball to 

the ESA and all to benefit a minority of special interests in a few 

western states. I, too, am a westerner from Arizona, like Congressman Gosar. But I wanted to give you some more time to actually 

go deeper and elaborate what you were specifically thinking about 

when you made those comments. 

Mr. DREHER. Thank you, Congressman. These bills appear to 

want to create special breaks for people that want to develop their 

land in ways that will, in fact, affect adversely endangered species. 

That is the primary thrust of about half of them. So, they really 

are a pro-land development set of bills. They are very one-sided. 

It is conspicuous in one sense, in the sense that at least twice 

they exclude judicial review for, for example, organizations like 

67 

mine that try to protect species, and allow judicial review for 

organizations like my colleagues sitting next to me, that may be defending property owners that are opposed to protection. I don’t 

mean any slight on him, I think we both have the same entitlement to use the courts to hold agencies accountable to the law. 

I think that when you have bills that attempt to grease the 

skids, or to create special procedures that would allow property 

owners to get exemptions from the way the Act works, these are 

kind of special pleading. These are bills that really are being advanced for particular special interests, in many cases. 

I don’t know what special interests they are being advanced for, 

I have not been part of the development of these bills, and I don’t 

mean to disparage the Congressmen that have introduced them, 

but I do think the effect of them is going to be to make it easier 

to develop land in a way which will hurt endangered species, and 

that is not, I think, consistent with the intent of the Act. 

Mr. GALLEGO. Are there any specific groups that you are thinking about or have seen in the past? I have been involved in this 

game for a little while, both on the state side also, as a state legislator, so I have some idea of who you are talking about. But I think 

an education for anyone else here, are there any particular groups 

that you have seen in the past using this type of movement to essentially benefit themselves? 

Mr. DREHER. Well, there has been a constant tension in the development of resources in the West. Right now, the theme of the 

Administration is to have as much one-sided development of oil and 

gas and mineral interests as possible on the Federal lands. And the 

Endangered Species Act and other Federal statutes can be significant checks on that kind of activity. 

So, if there are ways to carve loopholes in this. One of the things 

that frankly scares me, but maybe only because I don’t understand 

it, but there is a provision in one of these bills that would allow 

the Secretary to delegate management of a species to a private individual or, apparently, a corporation. I would not want endangered species managed by Exxon. 

Mr. GALLEGO. I yield back. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Further questions on H.R. 6354? 

Seeing none, that concludes the consideration of H.R. 6354. 

The Committee will now take up consideration of H.R. 6345 by 

Congressman Pearce. Any questions on H.R. 6345? 

Mr. Grijalva. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Dreher, first of all, despite some of the questioning, I do 

want to extend belated gratitude to Defenders. They were principal 

members of a grouping in Pima County in Arizona, where I was a 

supervisor that put together the Sonora Desert Conservation Plan, 

along with screaming and kicking of the homebuilders. And now 

they find it a wonderful management tool. 

And for other stakeholders in that community, it is a plan that 

worked, habitat for the species was protected for the pigmy owl, 

and the consequences have been positive on both ends: economically, habitat protection, a bond package passed by the voters to 

buy additional open space and land for habitat protection, and that 

was a consequence of collaboration. And the presence of the 

68 

Defenders, in terms of expertise and advocates that you brought to 

that issue was very, very important. So, my belated thanks for that 

effort, sir. 

Mr. Dreher, H.R. 6345 requires the Secretary to consult with 

each state and county in which a species is located before the 

species is considered for protections under ESA. This process could 

create a massive amount of bureaucracy. Hypothetically, let’s pretend endangered species like the whooping crane, that is not currently listed—whooping cranes can be found in 17 states and over 

700 counties—the bill would require the Federal agency to consult 

with over 700 different chief executives to determine whether the 

species deserves protection. What is fundamentally wrong with 

that? 

Mr. DREHER. I think you have identified at least a couple of the 

major concerns. The first is obviously just the burden this would 

place on an already over-burdened Department of the Interior and 

Fish and Wildlife Service. I think, in fact, the Department of the 

Interior has expressed concerns about that burden in its testimony, 

as well. 

I think there is much more in this bill that is troublesome. It 

goes far beyond saying that it is important for the Department of 

the Interior to solicit information from state and local governments. 

And I think there are already provisions in the Act that require 

that. There already are clear policies from the Department of the 

Interior that encourage the coordination with and collaboration 

with states and with local governments to collect information. 

This bill sets up a very odd provision that says that if a state 

or county objects to a listing, then the Secretary can only move forward if he can prove that information that the state or county 

submitted was incorrect. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. If I may, Mr. Renkes, on that point, that the bill 

would preclude the Secretary from proceeding with a petition for 

action if a chief executive advises the action is not warranted unless the Secretary can demonstrate the chief executive is wrong, is 

incorrect, how would a Secretary demonstrate just information received by the chief executive is incorrect? Who would be the arbiter 

to determine whether the chief executive or the Secretary is 

correct? Who decides that? 

Mr. RENKES. As I understand the bill, it would essentially create 

a rebuttable presumption that the information coming from the 

state is correct, and then, if the Secretary found that that information was incorrect, he or she would provide a response and a record 

of decision explaining those reasons. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And that explanation would finalize it? 

Mr. RENKES. I believe that record of decision, since they used the 

words ‘‘record of decision,’’ would be subject to review. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Review through the courts, reviewed through—so 

the scenario is set up for—OK. 

Do you have any other concerns, Mr. Dreher or Mr. Renkes, on 

this legislation? 

Mr. RENKES. No, we support the bill. We support the idea of the 

involvement of states. We are doing it now. The Fish and Wildlife 

Service has an agency goal of 100 percent of participation of states 

in the listing process and, in fact, gives states a seat at the table 

69 

to consider all the scientific information that comes in to determine 

whether that information is the best available science, and then 

that goes into the construction. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. But it doesn’t have veto power, those chief executives, those states, those counties. This bill provides, essentially, 

veto power over any listing. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN [presiding]. All right. To this bill, Mr. Gosar? 

Mr. Westerman, EMPOWERS? 

Mr. Bergman? 

OK. 

[Pause.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Let’s go to the next one, which is Mr. 

McClintock’s bill, H.R. 3608. You are recognized to introduce your 

bill. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM MCCLINTOCK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. H.R. 3608 is based 

on a very simple principle, that sunlight is the best of disinfectants. 

It was originally sponsored by Chairman Doc Hastings in the 113th 

Congress. 

The bill requires the government to publish all science underpinning ESA determinations and the costs imposed, and caps 

attorney’s fees at $125 per hour, as consistent with the Equal 

Access to Justice Act. 

When this was last considered by the Congress, over 25 organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Family Farm 

Alliance, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the 

American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Association of 

Counties, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the National 

Water Resources Association, Washington Farm Bureau, Oregon 

Farm Bureau, Public Power Council, and National Association of 

Conservation Districts all supported the measure. It passed with 

bipartisan support both out of this Committee and out of the House 

of Representatives in the 113th Congress. 

The bill has four components aimed at improving transparency. 

It requires data used by Federal agencies for ESA listing decisions 

to be made publicly available and accessible through the Internet. 

This provision would allow the American people to actually see 

what data is being used to make key listing decisions. 

Second, it requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to track, 

report to Congress, and make available online the funds expended 

to respond to ESA lawsuits, the number of employees dedicated to 

litigation, the attorney’s fees awarded in the course of ESA litigation, and settlement agreements. The American people should 

know all of the money that is being diverted from species recovery 

in order to cover lawyers’ fees and other litigation costs. 

Third, the measure requires the Federal Government to disclose 

to affected states all data used prior to any ESA listing decisions, 

and requires that the best-available scientific and commercial data 

used by the Federal Government include data provided by affected 

70 

states, tribes, and local governments. It is important to hear from 

the state and local governments and the tribes when making decisions that will affect their land management. Restoring good stewardship of our public lands should be our ultimate goal. 

Fourth, it places reasonable caps on attorney’s fees, and makes 

the ESA consistent with another Federal law. The Equal Access to 

Justice Act limits the hourly rate for prevailing attorney fees to 

$125 per hour. However, no such fee cap currently exists under the 

ESA, and attorneys have often been awarded huge sums of taxpayer-funded money. This provision places the same $125-per-hour 

cap on attorney’s fees for suits filed under the ESA that currently 

exist under the Equal Access to Justice Act. 

I do want to clear up a misunderstanding expressed by a 

Member earlier. It does not require that state and tribal and local 

governments that have submitted reports be accepted as the bestavailable science. Rather, their work must be considered among the 

reports that ultimately form the decision. 

This is important for a number of reasons, not the least of which 

state witnesses and local governments, and tribal governments, 

which often have a great deal of information on the local conditions, have simply been ignored during previous consideration of 

listing decisions. 

There is a growing tendency on the left to hide scientific data 

that is contrary to their own predetermined conclusions. That is 

not science. Science welcomes debate. Science welcomes challenge. 

And it relies on the ability of independent researchers to replicate 

its data. When someone says you are not allowed to ask questions, 

you are not allowed to look at the data, you are not allowed to debate the issue, you are not allowed to look at the full scope of the 

data, that is not a scientist talking, that is a politician—and an 

authoritarian one, at that. 

So, this measure opens up the information that is available so 

the public can look at it, the science can be debated and challenged, 

and the best possible decision rendered under the terms of the 

Endangered Species Act. 

In my remaining time I want to note the presence of Jamie 

Johansson, the President of the California Farm Bureau Federation. His presidency of that federation has been a breath of fresh 

air. Agriculture has suffered a number of setbacks in recent years 

in California, and Mr. Johansson’s leadership of the Farm Bureau 

comes at an absolutely critical time. 

In the remaining 19 seconds, Mr. Johansson, any comments on 

the bill? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. JOHANSSON. Well, thank you—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Actually, wait. 

Mr. JOHANSSON [continuing]. For the kind words. I will quickly 

say that I think this bill would fully expose—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Wait, wait, hold on. Wait a minute, wait. Start 

him over again. 

I am going to yield my time to you for questions, if you have any, 

which you do. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Just for Mr. Johansson to wrap up. 

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead, then. 

71 

Mr. JOHANSSON. All right. I would say thank you for the kind 

words. 

And really quickly, acknowledging that you gave me more time— 

but I think this bill would surely show, in its implementation, the 

industry of conflict that has developed around the ESA, which I 

talked about earlier, which is an unfortunate place that we find 

ourselves and our farms and ranches, not getting solutions, but 

constant conflict. 

Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Do you have questions on this bill? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. First, Mr. Chairman, I have two questions, but I 

ask unanimous consent to enter a letter into the record of over 

1,500 scientists and experts urging Congress not to weaken the 

Endangered Species Act, and it is specifically addressing portions 

of this legislation, if there is no objection. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, as long as you don’t read it. 

[The information follows:] 

THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS

September 25, 2018 

Dear Representative: 

This week, the House Committee on Natural Resources is holding a legislative 

hearing on several proposals that threaten the important role of science in implementing the Endangered Species Act, and allow for politics to intrude into decisions 

about which species need protection, H.R. 3608, H.R. 6345, H.R. 6355, and 

H.R. 6356. The Union of Concerned Scientists, representing more than 500,000 

members and supporters across the country, urges you to oppose all of these bills 

which undermine one of our nation’s most effective science-based laws for protecting 

imperiled species on the brink of extinction. We are especially concerned about 

H.R. 3608, H.R. 6345, H.R. 6355, and H.R. 6356. Together, along with the other 

five bills that the committee is scheduled to hear testimony on, they would threaten 

the integral role of science in carrying out the Endangered Species Act. 

H.R. 3608, deceptively named ‘‘The Endangered Species Transparency and 

Reasonableness Act,’’ would undermine the Endangered Species Act’s science-based 

determination process by declaring any information provided by states, tribes, or 

counties to constitute ‘‘best available science,’’ regardless of the scientific merit of 

that information. Decisions to list or delist a species are already required to use the 

best available science, which of course can include state, tribal, and local scientific 

studies when they are conducted in accordance with well-established scientific 

standards. Best available science is a culmination of the efforts undertaken by 

scientists and wildlife experts at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), where they conduct studies, gather data 

and other information from the scientific community and the public, including state, 

local, and tribal government and industry. 

H.R. 6345, the ‘‘Ensuring Meaningful Petition Outreach While Enhancing Rights 

of States Act,’’ would insert economic considerations into the listing decision process 

and would give states arbitrary veto authority over listing decisions. The 

Endangered Species Act rightfully requires listing decisions to be made based on the 

best available scientific and commercial data. By giving states and local governments the arbitrary ability to object to science-based decisions to protect imperiled 

species, it politicizes the process of species conservation and makes it more difficult 

for agencies to rely on the best information. 

H.R. 6355, the ‘‘Providing ESA Timing Improvements that Increase Opportunities 

for Nonlisting Act,’’ would provide a fast track to prioritize delistings and 

downlistings of species in the event of a backlog. While this sounds like a method 

72 

1https://s3.amazonaws.com/ucs-documents/science-and-democracy/esa-letter-final-september25-20l8.pdf. 

to ease the backlog, this is not accompanied by a similar mechanism, to fast track 

listings, nor is it addressing the funding problem at the root of the backlog at the 

agency. This is a misrepresented attempt to push the agency to make unscientific 

decisions to delist and downlist species because they have been historically starved 

for funding. 

H.R. 6356, the ‘‘Less Imprecision in Species Treatment Act,’’ is a bill meant to 

intimidate and push scientists and the public out of the petition process. This bill 

would keep petitioners from submitting another petition to list imperiled species for 

10 years after ‘knowingly’ including inaccurate information in a listing petition. 

Scientists and communities should not fear presenting their research in petitions in 

case the agency deems it a misrepresentation and locks them out of any future 

process. 

Earlier this week, more than 1,500 scientists 1 asked Congress to protect the 

Endangered Species Act. These ill-advised proposals would only weaken the Act and 

hinder science-based policymaking. 

In addition to the four bills listed above, we also stand in solidarity with our partners in opposition to H.R. 6344, H.R. 6346, H.R. 6354, H.R. 6360, and H.R. 6364. 

Combined with these egregious anti-science bills, all of these proposals attempt to 

substitute politics for scientific judgment and make it harder for the public to 

engage in wildlife stewardship. We urge you to oppose all nine of these illinformed pieces of legislation that undermine our nation’s most effective 

science-based conservation law, the Endangered Species Act. 

Sincerely, 

ANDREW A. ROSENBERG, PH.D., 

Director, Center for Science and Democracy 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Dreher, H.R. 3608 undermines the citizen 

suit provision of ESA. Elaborate on that situation and elaborate on 

the double standard. Some of my colleagues are very supportive of 

restrictions on attorney’s fees pertaining to ESA, but support such 

a restriction in other areas that are particular to them. If you could 

elaborate on that, sir, I would appreciate it. 

And, also, the issue of who has a monopoly on the best-available 

science, and do states, local counties, tribes, and private entities, 

do they have a particular monopoly on what is good science, and 

the science being generated by the agencies is not good science because it has been scrubbed? 

Although that seems to be the practice going on in this 

Administration with regard to climate change and anything that 

approaches science. But that is another issue. 

Mr. Dreher? 

Mr. DREHER. Thank you, Congressman. I think the first issue 

you referred to is the limitation on attorney’s fees. A number of environmental statutes provide for a provision of attorney’s fees to 

prevailing parties in order to incentivize citizen enforcement of the 

law. 

And an important part of maintaining the rule of law is to hold 

agencies accountable, and recognizing that many people do not 

have resources to hire high-priced lawyers. Corporations often have 

the money to hire major law firms, but citizens groups often don’t. 

And individual citizens certainly don’t. 

So, this would cap those fees using the Equal Access to Justice 

Act. One consequence of that I would call out is that the Equal 

Access to Justice Act awards fees from the agency’s budget. So, this 

73 

is, again, a way of siphoning off money from the listing and protection and recovery of endangered species to pay attorney’s fees. 

Attorney’s fees that are currently paid out under the ESA are paid 

out of the judgment fund, as they are under the Clean Water Act 

and under the Clean Air Act, and other major environmental bills. 

The other point is the issue about the best-available science. I 

certainly think that states and counties and localities may well 

have valid science that should be considered, and I think that if 

this bill did nothing more than to encourage the Department of the 

Interior to consider all such material that was provided by governments, it would be fully consistent with the Department of the 

Interior’s existing policy, and it would be something that certainly 

Defenders of Wildlife would support. 

The problem is the actual language of the Act. And this is not 

the only bill that has recited this. There have been several other 

bills each Congress that declare that the term ‘‘best available 

scientific and commercial information’’ includes data submitted by 

a state or tribal or a county government. 

So, imagine the problem that you have, I mean the sponsor’s 

statement about encouraging scientific debate. The whole point 

about choosing and selecting what is the best-available science involves scientific evaluation by scientists of the actual validity and 

reliability of scientific studies and information that they rely on, on 

what the data is. 

This would declare that information, which may be completely 

erroneous, it may be irrelevant, or it may just have data of conflicts, or it may just be in conflict with other scientific information—it may, in fact, be a validly conducted study, but it may be 

an outlier in the field of species conservation, but this would declare that the Service has to rely upon it. That is what the meaning of ‘‘best available scientific and commercial information’’ is. 

That is what they have to actually make their decisions on. 

So, it kind of throws out the whole issue about evaluating that 

science to determine if it is valid. And that is, I think, why so many 

scientists are objecting to this. 

The CHAIRMAN. You good? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any questions for this one? 

Dr. GOSAR. First of all, I would like to respond to the 1,500 

scientists about weakening the ESA. At a 2 percent success rate, 

that is hardly success. That is hardly success, by anybody’s standards. So, we ought to be looking at trying to mitigate that. And 

that is why, Mr. Dreher, I came back at you to see where we 

should go, based on your intuitions. 

It is not good enough just to allow this to occur and just say, 

well, these are fundamentally flawed. It is what are your solutions. 

And that is why I asked my first questions to you, and you couldn’t 

answer them. And that is what is so sad about this, is that 

everybody’s heart is in the right place, to mitigate this. I mean, you 

have a conflict of interest. And that is why I asked about the 

money, is to find out how much exactly you have actually benefited 

from, not just in the financial dollars, but in delays and deliberative stoppages of any program or anything that could actually benefit. So, I find that kind of interesting, that you would look at that. 

74 

Mr. Renkes, what right do states, local governments, tribes, and 

industries have to know what the Federal Government is up to? 

And why does it matter whether states are consulted, and whether 

these entities know the internal deliberations of government? 

Mr. RENKES. Let me say the Administration supports the thrust 

of this bill, and a maximum amount of transparency. And I think 

the right that they have to know is the right to know that these 

decisions are based on the very best information, which is the goal 

of the Act. And having the best information will result from transparency of the data that is provided. 

I believe this Administration has mentioned before, made it 100 

percent agency goal to bring the states to the table and actually— 

it used to be that in the administration of this Act, that science 

would be reviewed in a corner, and not revealed and not transparent to the public in some cases. But now, the states are invited 

to the table to review all of the information that comes into the 

agency, and then participate with the Service in the creation of the 

science document that is used in the listing process. 

So, it is that kind of transparency that this bill advances, and 

we think it is a good thing for the Act. 

Dr. GOSAR. So, walk with me for a minute in regards to an issue 

you probably are aware of, and that is forest thinning. And the 

tribal involvement, because I look at this intentionally from that 

standpoint. 

We have the Rodeo and Chediski fires over in the eastern part 

of Arizona, and the tribe was very upset because of the neglect and 

the destruction that occurred. So, what they did is they took it 

upon themselves on their tribal lands to thin the forest in an appropriate, prescribed application that may not have been part of 

the Federal Government’s. And it actually worked. 

Would that be an example of how that interaction would occur 

for best-available science? 

Mr. RENKES. After the listing decision has been made, and you 

have a recovery plan, or have that conservation plan, I think that 

then you want continued input and continued involvement of the 

local governments and tribes and the states, because they have the 

best available local knowledge. And I think—— 

Dr. GOSAR. That shows you the success is the implementation on 

the floor. And I think that this bill is important in that regard, because it shows you a real time evaluation of success. 

Mr. RENKES. That is correct. 

Dr. GOSAR. Thank you. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Westerman, do you have a question on this 

one? 

Mr. Bergman, on this one? 

Mr. LaMalfa, do you have a question on this one? You do have 

one, though? 

Mr. LAMALFA. You need me to come over there? 

The CHAIRMAN. Tell you what. Give your question, then come 

here. 

He’s chairing from right there for a second. 

Mr. LAMALFA [presiding]. All right. Give me a second here. 

Thank you. 

75 

OK, Mr. Johansson, let’s come back to this on the attorney’s fees 

angle of this. I think that is a very important component in the 

bill, and something I have tried to advance previously in other legislation, as well, in that the incentive—and we kind of talked about 

it with this letter I submitted up there earlier—is that there is a 

giant incentive to sue, just for the heck of it, because there is a 

good chance of recovery. 

And with the cap in the fees, what do you see on all this stuff 

we have been talking about in California, especially where we have 

salvage, fire salvage operations that try to happen, and a litany of 

lawsuits that come from that, and then we were talking about on 

the land use, et cetera. If these fees were capped at something that 

is more reasonable, what do you see as far as the frequency of continued lawsuits that appear to some of us as being pretty frivolous, 

because there is no downside? 

Mr. JOHANSSON. Well, I would say—and I repeat what I said earlier, in terms of exposing an industry of conflict that really has developed around the ESA and people or organizations that thrive on 

litigation. It is the first thing they are going to turn to, is to litigate 

and to challenge. 

So, by posting a transparency of what we are spending on those 

fees, or what is being spent on those fees also is important in terms 

of when we discuss how much we are funding the ESA, what truly 

is going into the ESA, in terms of our implementation of it. We 

have to recognize the litigation aspect of it. There is no one who 

goes into a habitat conservation plan or any other sort of conservation plan without the advice of attorney, because that is your first 

decision, probably, in complying with the ESA, if you have to, is 

who is the good attorney. 

So, we would hope that it would minimize the litigation, and we 

could go forward with conservation. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. Thank you, I will yield. 

Mr. YOUNG. Then recognize me. 

[Pause.] 

Mr. LAMALFA. I would recognize Mr. Young. Did you have a 

question? 

Mr. YOUNG. No question. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Oh, no? OK. All right. Then no further questions 

on this bill. 

We will jump to Mr. Young’s bill, H.R. 6364. And I will recognize 

Mr. Young. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chairman. First, let 

me tell you what is wrong with this whole program. I am the only 

one that has ever voted on this Act. And when we voted on it, it 

was 10 pages long. And it is now 386 pages long, not by congressional action, by action of the agencies that implement the 

Endangered Species Act. That is what is the problem. 

And I want to stress that. And I will tell you I have little respect 

for the Defenders of Wildlife or any other group that uses this Act 

as it never was intended. I remember the testimony before us. 

Unfortunately, it was written wrong, but it was to protect animals 

76 

that were endangered, birds that were endangered, but not all this 

other stuff. But we did put it in there that frogs would be protected, flies would be protected, hopping mice would be protected, 

without consideration of the science and how it affected other 

species. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I can suggest one thing. My little bill just requires that the counties and states, the tribes work together with 

the Federal agencies to come to an agreement on what is the best 

way to protect the animals and the species, including the frogs. 

That is what we are trying to do. 

But the Act itself has been misinterpreted and misused, primarily to take property away from the private individual and impede progress, which deeply disturbs me, because that is not what 

America is all about. 

Mr. Sauter, the LAMP program, that is my Act, authorizes 

Federal agencies to delegate greater authority to the states and 

tribes, et cetera. In your experience, do you believe the states, 

along with the tribes and counties and local municipalities, have 

the capability of managing species in a professional manner, protecting them, and still going forth with everyday life? 

Mr. SAUTER. Thank you for the question, Congressman. Yes, absolutely. I think there is ample evidence. And I have evidence as 

far as my own personal experience as a county commissioner. We 

work on wildlife programs, we conserve species, we save habitat all 

the time. And I think there is this erroneous assumption that local 

and state and tribal—maybe not so much tribal—cannot be trusted 

to look after species, that we don’t care about species, that we don’t 

want to see species recovered. That is simply not true. 

Our view is that the best people, the people that have the most 

to gain from all of this, are actually those local landowners. 

Mr. YOUNG. I happen to agree with you. And, by the way, most 

species that are put on the list come from outside interests, have 

nothing to do with the agencies. They are proposed, or they will sue 

to put them on the list. People don’t look at that. Again, misusing 

the Act itself. 

Mr. Renkes, congratulations, by the way, appearing before this 

Committee for the first time. Do you believe increased support from 

agencies of state and local-driven conservation efforts and species 

management can lead to more effective outcomes of species and the 

communities most impacted by them? 

Mr. RENKES. Yes, Congressman. The Department appreciates 

and supports the goals of the LAMP Act. And anything we can do 

to increase the involvement and the participation of the states and 

tribes and local governments is better for the conservation of endangered species. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I just have a little personal experience. I was originally from California until I got smart and went 

to Alaska. As you know, I had a ranch there, and my brother ran 

it. And we have a grove. My father set aside 20 acres. 

Along came California’s Fish and Wildlife and Federal Fish and 

Wildlife, and said we set that grove up, my dad did, for preservation of species, long before it was popular. And because we had an 

abundance of golden garter snakes, they were told that we would 

77 

have to put a buffer zone in 1,000 yards long, away from that little 

grove. We couldn’t farm it. 

Mr. Renkes, you said shoot and shovel—what is it? Shoot, shut 

up, and shovel. 

Mr. RENKES. Shoot, shovel, and shut up. 

Mr. YOUNG. I used the hoe, and I shoveled, and I shut up. But 

the idea that they were going to punish the ranch because we protected something, that is how stupid this bill is. It was never intended for that. 

So, Mr. Chairman, this is a good piece of legislation. All these 

bills deserve merit. And if we don’t do it, in fact, the Act itself 

eventually will be defeated by the people. I yield back. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think that hearkens back to 

the PREDICTS Act from a little while ago, the conversation we are 

having—can I predict that I can set my land in a certain way and 

be able to use it if I need to in a different way later? And you cannot predict that because they pronounce it on your private 

property. 

Let me turn to Mr. Grijalva. Do you have questions? Or any of 

your other colleagues on that side of the aisle there? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Which one are we on, LAMP? 

Mr. LAMALFA. H.R. 6364, by Mr. Young. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Oh, Mr. Young’s bill. 

Mr. Dreher, do you have concerns on this legislation, sir? 

Mr. DREHER. I do, sir. Defenders of Wildlife fully appreciates and 

supports the role of state governments in managing resident 

species of wildlife, and we certainly support anything that would 

help to encourage collaboration between states and the Federal 

Government and other stakeholders, including groups like ours and 

including property owners, to try to engage in endangered species 

conservation. 

There are significant concerns about widescale delegation of the 

ESA to the states. There was a very comprehensive study done by 

the University of California Irvine School of Law that examined the 

authorities that state governments have to protect endangered 

species, and found things that were actually a little shocking, like 

almost no state has authority to actually try to recover an imperiled species that is listed under state law. Very few of them require 

expert consultations. Very few of them protect plants. 

Almost none of them protect the whole list of endangered species 

that the Federal Government protects. And, maybe most revealing, 

only 5 percent of the money that is spent on endangered species 

conservation is spent by the states. 

So, there are real concerns about the capacity and authority of 

the states to step up and take this kind of leadership role on endangered species conservation away from the Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. That is not to 

say they shouldn’t work hand in hand, and they absolutely should, 

and as they do, whenever they do, we applaud that. But we are 

concerned about that. 

But I would say the other thing that really gives me pause, because I have never actually seen this before, is the suggestion in 

this particular bill that the Secretary could delegate management 

of entire species or groups of species, as well as habitats of those 

78 

species, to private parties. And I don’t know what a non-Federal 

party is, but it could include, as far as I can tell, an oil and gas 

company or a mining company. I have never seen anything like 

this in the discussions about the endangered species conservation 

program, and I don’t know how far it could go. It would exempt 

those parties from take and from the requirement to consult. 

If you have delegation of authority not to a state—states, after 

all, are kindred spirits to the Federal Government in their commitment to conserving endangered species. But private parties? 

So, I think this bill raises very, very significant and large concerns about what it might do to the endangered species program. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

If I may, Mr. Chairman, just because we were talking about the 

litigation part on the other legislation, a 2017 GAO report on 

Endangered Species Act deadlined litigation, only approximately 13 

cases were filed per year on deadline lawsuits from 2005 to 2015. 

Moreover, only half of the cases were brought by environmental 

groups, with the rest by a variety of plaintiffs, including the 

California Cattlemen’s Association, the Florida Homebuilders 

Association, and finally, of the 141 cases filed in the 10-year period 

of deadline lawsuits, 72 were resolved through settlement. 

And I mention that because of all the civil cases brought against 

the Federal Government, less than one-half of 1 percent are with 

EPA and Interior. The rest are commercial litigation cases, so security litigation cases, prisoner litigation cases, and other mostly 

commercial cases. 

So, I suggest that before we make this the issue of the lawsuit 

and a citizen’s right to access the court for redress, and handcuff 

that process, that we look very carefully, because this is not the 

boogeyman that it is being made out to be by the proponents of 

limiting the ability of the citizen to access the courts for redress. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LAMALFA. All right. Thank you, Mr. Grijalva. Would Mr. 

Gosar like to be recognized? 

Mr. Westerman? OK. 

I will touch upon a little bit. Mr. Wood, on this bill, with what 

Mr. Young was talking about there, like on a management of their 

own land, they had set aside that 20 acres, for good reasons, and 

then found that they didn’t have control of their land any more. 

Can you elaborate a little bit on what you see from the legal angle 

of how does a landowner carry that battle these days on regaining 

their control of managing their land, even though they might have 

a species on that that they are actually helping to propagate, but 

not enough to change the use of that land, and not have a buffer 

zone, et cetera? 

Mr. WOOD. It often is very difficult. One of the biggest challenges 

with the Endangered Species Act the way it is written and the way 

it is implemented is that it often punishes the landowner who provides habitat for rare species, when what we really need is greater 

incentives to restore and enlarge existing habitat, because it is 

often too small for the most imperiled species. 

So, from the property-owner’s perspective, it could be really dangerous to create or restore habitat, because you are essentially setting yourself up for far greater regulation. And many of the things 

79 

that have been done by administrations of both political parties 

and that are codified in many of these bills will make that situation better by providing more certainty to landowners, as well as 

additional incentives to do that important work. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Mr. Johansson, same thing on that. Again, because it seems to be a disincentive for people I know of in various 

Ag. industries to do that good thing and leave something on some 

set-aside land, and then lose control of it because you let trees grow 

too long on that piece of land, or something of that nature. 

Mr. JOHANSSON. That is the fear, and this our hope, to remedy, 

and why California Farm Bureau, American Farm Bureau is here 

today, is to bring in the certainty that doing the wrong thing—or 

excuse me, doing the right thing won’t end up being the wrong 

thing, in terms of the longevity of your farm and your family on 

that land. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Yes, because the results I see is that people are 

going to leave their land barren and so highly maintained that a 

weed can’t grow or a tree can’t grow on areas that they don’t want 

it to take over, and then lose that control. So, thank you. 

Anybody else on the panel have any last thoughts on H.R. 6364? 

OK, all right. With that we will move on to H.R. 6356 by Mr. 

Biggs of Arizona, called the LIST Act of 2018. I will throw this over 

to our colleagues here. 

Mr. Gosar. 

Dr. GOSAR. Mr. Wood and Mr. Renkes, at present do we make 

enough of an effort to distinguish between species that are experiencing population decline as a consequence of human versus nonhuman factors at the petitioning and listing stage? 

I will start with you, Mr. Renkes. 

Mr. RENKES. The listing decision is based on the definition in the 

Act. I am not sure if that is what your question was getting at. 

Dr. GOSAR. Well, do we make a distinction that are consequences 

of human versus non-human factors in the petitioning process? 

Mr. RENKES. In the Act, there is a definition of endangered and 

threatened species, as you know. And a five-factor analysis is supplied. And in those five factors, the last, fifth factor, is natural or 

man-made factors that affect the continued existence of the species. 

Dr. GOSAR. Mr. Wood? 

Mr. WOOD. I agree. The Act, as written, doesn’t distinguish between those two different types of threats. And one of the challenges of the implementation is that the response required will be 

very different, based on whether a threat is man-made or natural. 

And the regulatory approach contained in the Act doesn’t do as 

good of a job creating the incentives we need for novel and innovative solutions, particularly to those natural threats, where a species 

is competing with another species. Telling a farmer he can’t plow 

isn’t going to change that underlying natural phenomenon. 

Dr. GOSAR. Give me an example in regards to how the law 

differentiates. 

Mr. WOOD. Well, as I said, in terms of the listing, it doesn’t. It 

says—— 

Dr. GOSAR. I am sorry, it is the opposite. Tell me, by law, how 

it doesn’t differentiate, and how it could be effective. 

80 

Mr. WOOD. So, for example, the spotted owl in the Pacific 

Northwest was listed based on fears that logging would eventually 

damage too much habitat. Well, today the main threat to that 

species is competition from another species of owl. Limiting the 

ability for timberland owners to harvest their land and their trees 

is not going to change the underlying dynamics of that shifting ecosystem and the competition the owl is facing. 

Dr. GOSAR. Well, obviously, species went extinct before humans 

came around. We just happened to accelerate those rates through 

habitat modification. Do you think that is a useful distinction, one 

that could easily be readily measured and implemented in consideration under the ESA, Mr. Wood? 

Mr. WOOD. Well, I think, certainly given how popular the Act is, 

no one wants to just accept extinction. It may be impossible to prevent all of it, but it is something we all care about. 

I think what is important is to stress how those challenges make 

it even more necessary to focus on flexibility and free market, or 

voluntary, conservation means. That is what is going to accomplish 

those solutions we need. Regulating landowners doesn’t address 

any of those problems. 

Dr. GOSAR. So, more of a—not you can’t, but how can you help 

with verifiable outcomes, right? 

Mr. WOOD. Exactly. 

Dr. GOSAR. Mr. Wood, why does the distinction between 

threatened and endangered matter? 

Mr. WOOD. Well, obviously, the biggest reason why it matters is 

that endangered species are on the verge of going extinct. Those 

are the ones that most critically need protection. The reason why 

it matters legally is that Congress made different judgments for 

the two types of species. Threatened species don’t require the same 

regulatory protections endangered species do. 

Historically, the Service hasn’t honored that distinction, but the 

Administration has recently proposed to restore it. And that rule 

change will provide a lot more flexibility for states and private 

property owners to pursue active recovery efforts. And I think it 

will actually boost the rate at which we recover species. 

Dr. GOSAR. So, do you think Congress should reinforce that 

distinction and that it would benefit species conservation? 

Mr. WOOD. Absolutely. I think that is clear from the text of the 

statute, as written. But codifying and emphasizing it, I think, 

would be absolutely helpful. 

Dr. GOSAR. Would you agree with that, Mr. Renkes? 

Mr. RENKES. Yes, I would, and it is a major thrust of the current 

regulations. 

Dr. GOSAR. This seems like this is a kind of a common-sense bill 

that is looking at outcomes and looking at all resources into that 

predication. Wouldn’t you agree, Mr. Wood? 

Mr. WOOD. Yes. 

Dr. GOSAR. Supporting species, right? 

Mr. WOOD. That is exactly right. For instance, the last thing we 

talked about, empowering states, is something that builds on efforts by the Obama administration to better engage with states. I 

think most people realize we need changes like this to incentivize 

more active efforts to recover species. 

81 

Dr. GOSAR. OK, thank you. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Mr. Grijalva. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Wood, I think earlier today you discussed 

judicial review of endangered species listings for the Wyoming gray 

wolf and grizzly bears. In your testimony, you caution the 

Committee against ‘‘enacting any limitation on judicial review.’’ 

However, many of these bills, including this one, do just that. 

So, can you explain why that is problematic, and why the 

caution? 

Mr. WOOD. Sure. I found, in reviewing other statutes that preclude judicial review, that they are essentially invitations for agency mischief. And, often, the result is to undermine Congress’ will. 

That said, I recognize that too many ESA issues result in litigation, so something should be done. But I think the answer is to 

deal with the underlying incentives behind that litigation, like the 

amount of attorney’s fees, and not to ban access to the courts. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Dreher, another reaction to that opinion, 

something to agree on, or not? 

Mr. DREHER. Well, there has been talk among the members of 

the Committee about the need for sunshine and transparency. And 

one of the ways to ensure that is to allow the American public to 

actually look at what has been happening in a government decision, regardless of where you stand or what interest you represent, 

to know what it is and, if it is improper, to actually contest it 

against the standards of the law. That is what the courts are all 

about. That is what the rule of law is all about. 

I think, if there are too many conflicts over the ESA, the issue 

should be to try to resolve those conflicts, and to try to establish 

better ways to collaborate together. But denying American citizens 

their rights to go to court to indicate their civil rights is just not 

something I think this Committee should be doing. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

Mr. Dreher, one other question. And speaking of science, in all 

the legislation that we are seeing as a package on dismantling the 

ESA, one subject that doesn’t come up, and it is a scientific issue, 

is the issue of climate change and its impact on habitat and impact 

of species on their recovery. Can you, from your perspective and expertise, talk a little bit about how that is also part of changing the 

discussion around species protection and recovery efforts? 

Mr. DREHER. Yes. I think climate change is the huge and growing threat to life on this planet, frankly. And, certainly, to the balance that we have and that we know about. It has unsettled, I 

think, all of our expectations in the field of conservation. We used 

to think that we could restore habitat in areas to a pristine, preColumbian state. Now we are facing the fact that we are changing 

the climate so severely that we—but the point about all of this is 

that what climate change does is exacerbate the pressures that we 

are putting on species. 

Most species are endangered because of the pressures of human 

development. And climate change exacerbates that. So, any rational process for trying to conserve biodiversity, including one under 

this Act, has to take climate change into effect. And that complicates things. 

82 

It means we have to think about, for example, do we need to protect vacant habitat, where a species doesn’t currently live, but 

where it will have to move? Species are having to move upslope, 

they are having to move north, they are having to move away from 

temperature gradients that put them at risk. So, it may become 

crucially important to do conservation planning that establishes 

where those trends are, and—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Accessing corridors, that is another discussion 

that I have heard, as well. Yes, I think when you are talking about 

this very vital and important legislation, the ESA law—not only 

anticipating what is coming, but accepting that as real science, I 

think helps mitigate recovery, both of species and protection and 

conservation of habitats. And all this legislation, and most of what 

we see on this Committee, in terms of environmental issues, the 

issue of climate change is a non-issue, a non-factual issue. I just 

wanted to get your response to that. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. DREHER. Well, we are worried that proposals by the 

Administration would eliminate consideration of climate change in 

administering the ESA. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes. 

Mr. DREHER. We are also worried, frankly, that the most important thing we need to do is develop better ways to work together 

and collaborate. And the kind of accusations in this bill, accusing 

environmentalists of explicit bad faith, are entirely unfounded, and 

not, I think, helpful to establish the kind of dialogue we need. 

Mr. LAMALFA. All right, thank you. 

Mr. Westerman? OK. 

I will have one for Mr. Renkes. As just a practical matter and 

summarizing the bill and what that looks like for the Secretary, for 

the Department, again, giving the power to the Secretary to de-list 

when, again, objective, scientific data clearly demonstrates a 

species is recovered, and also to act on wrongfully listed species, 

where the rubber meets the road, what does this really look like 

for the Secretary and for your Department there? 

Mr. RENKES. We agree with the focus—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. Let me juxtapose this with—we talked about gray 

wolf earlier, where in 2009 it was originally proposed to be delisted, and in my own backyard we have the valley elderberry longhorn beetle that was also submitted for de-listing at least 8 or 9 

or 10 years ago, as well, by Fish and Wildlife. So, mix that into 

your answer, too, please. 

Mr. RENKES. We agree with the focus of recovery and getting 

species off the list. And the regulations—public comment just 

closed on and by the way, we received 180,000 comments on the 

regulations, representing the input of over a million people. And 

that comment period closed on Monday. 

But one of the provisions in those regulations makes it clear that 

the standard for getting on or off the list is the same. It is the definition in the Act. And it is really the definition in the Act that is 

going to control in each of the 5-year reviews of the species, or 

when someone petitions for a down-listing or a de-listing. 

So, this LIST Act, we think, really would enhance the ability to 

move through that list. I think right now we have 533 petitions 

83 

under review, and 506 of those are past the 12-month deadline for 

a decision. 

Mr. LAMALFA. To add new species to the list? 

Mr. RENKES. Yes. 

Mr. LAMALFA. And none of them are de-listing or down-listing? 

Mr. RENKES. Oh, no. Some of those—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. What does that list look like? 

Mr. RENKES. The de-listing and down—I don’t have those 

numbers in front of me. We could get those to you. 

I am not familiar with the beetle issue that you raised, but I am 

somewhat familiar with the wolf. And the Service has maintained 

that the wolf had recovered, and it has gone through the courts, 

and now it has been settled for the Wyoming, Rocky Mountain population. And we are still waiting on a decision, I believe, for the 

Midwestern population of the wolf. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Whereas, the Secretary could be empowered, having looked at all the information, to go ahead and make the move, 

instead of more waiting, right? 

Mr. RENKES. Right. 

Mr. LAMALFA. All right. Mr. Wood, would you care to weigh in 

on that thought? 

Mr. WOOD. I think that is right, and it presents two sides of the 

problem. You mentioned the valley elderberry longhorn beetle, 

something I discussed in my written testimony. That is a case 

where the Service’s scientists said the science is there, this species 

status needs to be upgraded, and nothing happened. A petition was 

filed, and still nothing happened. 

And by the time the agency got around to acting, it said, well, 

now that science is too old and we have to start all over. It just 

shows that de-listing hasn’t been treated as a sufficient priority to 

get the ball moving. 

And, of course, the other challenge is the courts, that when a 

species gets de-listed, it will be challenged, and courts will strike 

the decision down even in situations where the species has recovered. It has happened with the gray wolf, and it has happened with 

the grizzly bear. 

Mr. LAMALFA. I recall on the elderberry beetle they actually did 

have the data on that. And then I don’t know if it was good to delist in 2008—just because they waste more time on that doesn’t 

mean that now that data isn’t good any more. 

But my understanding is they didn’t like the data they had, and 

they contracted for a different style of gathering the data on how 

they counted the beetle. It is a never-ending circus, really. 

OK. Any more questions on this one from the panel? 

With that, we will close out on H.R. 6356 and go to H.R. 6355 

by Mr. Westerman, the PETITION Act. 

Well done, Mr. Westerman, taking an eight-letter acronym, 

putting that together, that is pretty creative. 

84 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE WESTERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

ARKANSAS 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Pretty creative. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 

I thank the witnesses for being here today. 

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Young, alluded 

to this a little bit in his remarks, but as I have researched the ESA 

I have found that it was a highly partisan Act, highly partisan 

piece of legislation that was passed back in the early 1970s. I use 

that term ‘‘partisan,’’ meaning that it is something that is to be 

prejudiced in favor of a particular cause. And there was a particular cause. That cause was to protect critically imperiled species 

from extinction. 

And the legislation wasn’t partisan by today’s standards, because 

it passed the Senate with a vote of 92 to 0, and it passed the House 

with a vote of 390 to 12. There were very good intentions for the 

ESA, and we cannot deny the benefits we have seen because of implementation of the ESA. We have seen eagles, falcons, whales, 

grizzly bears, different birds, butterflies, and plants, all that have 

recovered because of the Endangered Species Act. 

But this hearing has given us a chance to explore the idea that 

there are updates needed to the ESA, and specifically my 

PETITION Act provides protections from abusing the process. It actually starts the listing procedure. 

Forty-five years ago, when the ESA was conceived, it was laudably designed so that anyone could work with the government to 

save a species. That is a good thing. As such, there is no cost to 

petition the Service, and the agency must thoroughly respond to 

each individual request within 90 days, even if the petition contains unsubstantiated information. Further, if the agency fails to 

respond within this limited time frame, then whoever petitioned 

Fish and Wildlife can take them to court. 

On the surface, this is all well and good. If my Federal Government ignores me, I get to take them to court. The problem is the 

process is being abused. Unlike the vision of citizen scientists banding together to save one or two species, a handful of well-funded 

organizations have overwhelmed the listing procedure. 

From 2007 to 2011, just two organizations were responsible for 

90 percent of all submitted petitions. These two groups, each with 

annual budgets exceeding $15 million, drove the average number 

of yearly petitions from 20 to well over 300. Fish and Wildlife 

Service has simply not been able to keep up with this increase, 

and, as a result, has been repeatedly drug into court and forced to 

accept settlements that undercut both the established listing procedure and Federal scientists. 

Some would suggest that Fish and Wildlife just needs more 

money and more people. Mr. Chairman, there are nearly 22,000 

plant and animal species in the United States alone, and there is 

no limit to how many can have ESA petitions filed on their behalf. 

These organizations have subverted well-intentioned policy. Rather 

than submit scientifically sound petitions, well-funded organizations can simply overwhelm the Service and then sue to achieve 

their desired result. This subversion is incredibly harmful, not only 

to the American taxpayer, but to species recovery, as a whole. 

85 

My bill, the PETITION Act, attempts to reverse this problem. By 

allowing the Secretary of the Interior to declare a petition backlog, 

and then allow the Fish and Wildlife scientists to prioritize which 

petitions need immediate attention, my bill allows for a fair and orderly consideration of all new petitions, not just the ones funded 

by large activist organizations. 

The structure of my bill is nothing new to Fish and Wildlife. In 

fact, part of the PETITION Act codifies the backlog structure put 

in place under the Obama administration, when frivolous petitions 

began to stack up. 

Overall, the purpose of my bill is to update a 45-year-old law to 

protect the Endangered Species Act from the current abuse it receives. Under the current structure, well-funded groups are drowning out sound science and species with true and immediate need. 

I am eager to conclude this testimony today, and I look forward 

to working with any member of this Committee to update the 

Endangered Species Act in a sound and responsible manner that 

gets back to doing what it was originally designed for. Again, that 

is to protect critically imperiled species from extinction. 

With that, I yield back. 

Mr. LAMALFA. All right, thank you, Mr. Westerman. 

Mr. Grijalva. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Dreher, again, backlog petitions are an issue 

for implementing the ESA. We have the approach being represented in Mr. Westerman’s legislation. Do you think there is a 

better approach, that one idea would be to increase the resources 

to the implementing agencies to meet this heightened demand, in 

terms of backlog. Beyond that, any other ideas, suggestions? 

Mr. DREHER. Thank you, Congressman. The thing is that the 

petition workload has been a burden. I have spent more than 2 

years at Fish and Wildlife Service and 41⁄2 years defending Fish 

and Wildlife Service at the Department of Justice. 

I was there when we faced the multiple species petitions that 

were filed in 2011, that proposed hundreds of species for listing. 

What happened there was, I think, responsible management. The 

Department of Justice and the Fish and Wildlife Service developed 

a plan. 

First, we took all those listings and all the deadline suits and put 

them into one court. Then we came up with a settlement approach 

that established a reasonable schedule that we could actually manage. And we got the commitment of the petitioners, the plaintiffs 

in those cases, to that schedule, and we have implemented it. It is 

difficult, but it can be done. But it does require resources. 

What this bill, unfortunately, does is to penalize the endangered 

species that Mr. Westerman says that he is seeking to protect. 

Under his scenario, if a backlog is established, a new petition that 

could be filed that brings to the attention of the Service a species 

that it had not previously recognized was in imminent risk of extinction would have to be ignored. They could not move on it. And 

then it would be denied after 180 days, automatically denied. And 

that could not then be judicially reviewed, all until they managed 

to bring the backlog down. 

And the only thing they can do until they bring the backlog down 

is to grant petitions to de-list, so it is an extremely one-sided 

86 

ratchet. It forces the Fish and Wildlife Service to spend all of its 

time on species which are, at least by definition, no longer in need 

of protections of the Act. So, although it is important to get them 

de-listed, and it is important for the success of the Act to show that 

they are recovered, they are not at risk. And it forces the Fish and 

Wildlife Service to spend all of its time and money on those species, 

instead of species that may be brought to its attention that, in fact, 

are critically imperiled. 

So, it is really a one-sided bill, and I think would do serious damage to the ability of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service to respond to legitimate petitions. 

And I guess I should just add that many of the species that are 

listed under the Act have been brought to the Service’s attention 

by citizens. That is why this Congress created the petition process. 

It is an analog to the citizen suit provision, yet recognizes that the 

agencies aren’t perfect, and in some cases they are going to sit on 

their hands. And what citizens have to do to make this Act work 

is be able to submit information and make the agencies grapple 

with it. That is all the petition process does. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. Mr. Dreher, you discussed the current 

extinction crisis. Can you elaborate in the time we have left a little 

more on that extinction crisis, the reality of it, and ESA’s important role in addressing that crisis? 

Mr. DREHER. Well, I was about to say I would be happy to, 

Congressman. It is not a happy subject. I think we are becoming 

aware, societally—scientists are becoming aware, responsible 

government decision makers, the public is becoming aware of the 

effects of the relatively unchecked development by the human 

species of the entire face of the planet. There is almost no part of 

the planet at this point that does not bear the effects of human 

development. 

We have lost half of all wild animals in the last 40 years. As 

many as 10 percent of all species on Earth will be endangered 

within the next 30 or 40 years, and that may be a very low estimate. That is according to the National Academies of Science. So, 

we are facing an extinction event that is comparable to what happened when the Earth was hit by comets that wiped out the 

dinosaurs. 

And it is our doing, which means that we bear the responsibility, 

the moral, the ethical, and the practical responsibility of trying to 

conserve the planet that we live on. 

The Act is the most visionary and the most effective law in the 

world to do that. Many other countries have endangered species 

legislation that really does nothing, except identify species that are 

going under, but don’t have any actual program for recovery. So, 

the Act is something we should all, I think, commend for its effort. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. LAMALFA. The gentleman yields back. We need to recognize 

Mr. Gosar? 

OK, Mr. Westerman. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Wood, in your testimony you mentioned that the Obama 

administration sought a cease-fire with the environmental groups 

suing the Federal Government. In fact, as part of that cease-fire, 

87 

the previous administration imposed a prioritization framework to 

a process that is actually codified in my bill. 

In your opinion, what is the status of that cease-fire? Has it 

ended? 

Mr. WOOD. The settlement itself has ended. But after that the 

Obama administration proposed a rule to finalize it. And it has 

been working. But, of course, it could be upended at any time. 

Unless Congress acts to codify that approach, at any time a petitioner could go to court and get an order to jump the line. And I 

think that would be a mistake. 

The Obama prioritization schedule properly focuses on the 

species that most need protection, rather than the weaker petitions 

that might get ordered by a court. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. So, Mr. Renkes, what is the current state of the 

petition backlog? 

Mr. RENKES. Currently, there are 533 petitions pending; 506 of 

those are past the 12-month deadline. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Is that backlog increasing or decreasing? 

Mr. RENKES. The Service is working to decrease the backlog, and 

they estimate now that it will take about a decade to work through 

that backlog. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Does the Federal Government anticipate the 

risk of major settlements from lawsuits increasing as a result of 

the state of the backlog? 

Mr. RENKES. Each species is taken on its own, and the determination is made of the best-available science, based on the definitions in the Act. So, the settlement process really doesn’t put pressure on the decisions that are made by the Service in that regard 

under the Act. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. And the mass petition settlement was mentioned earlier. Mr. Wood and Mr. Renkes, can you compare the 

treatment of a petition considered under normal conditions with 

one which is part of a mass petition settlement of a backlog such 

as happened in the recent years and decade? 

Mr. WOOD. Well, I am sure one of the other witnesses can testify 

a little bit more on the challenges it presents to the Service, but 

I think it is laudable that the Obama administration took on the 

problem of mega-petitions, recognizing that they make it a lot 

harder to decipher and resolve a petition, and proposed a rule to 

get rid of it. 

But to a large extent, the backlog crisis we saw in 2011 was the 

result of indecipherable petitions proposing to list hundreds of 

species at a time. And that is an incredibly challenging problem 

that I hope is done. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. And Mr. Wood, in your testimony you also 

mentioned that the Federal listing policy is largely dictated by 

whoever is most willing to petition the government. 

Mr. Renkes, is this characterization accurate, in your opinion? 

Mr. RENKES. Yes. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Wood, the settlements from these suits, 

then, undercuts sound, balanced science produced by the Federal 

Government? 

Mr. WOOD. It doesn’t affect the outcome. That still has to be 

done, based on the requirements in the Act. 

88 

But what it does is shift the decision about what species and 

what petitions to prioritize from the Service and the science to 

court orders. And those are inherently subject to arbitrariness. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Wood, is there any reason to suspect that 

some of the petitions that are submitted to Fish and Wildlife are 

actually submitted precisely in order to jam the system’s resources 

and create a petition backlog, making the government vulnerable 

to lawsuits? 

Mr. WOOD. Yes, it is certainly hard to speculate about the intent 

behind the groups that filed the petitions. You occasionally get the 

sort of smoking gun quote saying, ‘‘Thankfully, this species existed, 

because we wanted to stop some particular project.’’ 

But I think the fundamental problem is that Congress chose the 

agency to make the decisions about how to prioritize and protect 

species, and the backlog problem and the petition process is taking 

that away. And that is why a solution is so necessary. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Mr. Westerman, you mentioned the 92 to 0 vote 

in the Senate back in 1973, was it? 

Mr. WESTERMAN. That is correct. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Do you think that group of Republicans cared 

more about the environment then than they do now? Is that what 

you attribute that to? 

Mr. WESTERMAN. It was 92 to 0. We can’t speculate, but we can 

look at results. 

Mr. LAMALFA. All right. I appreciate that. OK, we will wrap up 

here. 

Oh, Mr. Gosar, you wish to—— 

Dr. GOSAR. Yes. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. 

Dr. GOSAR. I just wanted him to go first, because it was his bill. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. 

Dr. GOSAR. Mr. Wood, is there ever a good theoretical rationale 

for a major petition and listing settlement with respect to the merits of such listings? 

Mr. WOOD. No, and the Service has long taken a position that 

a settlement cannot dictate the outcome of a petition. 

Dr. GOSAR. Are such mass settlements, in your opinion, good 

solutions to the backlog and to litigation with respect to the goals 

of the Act? 

Mr. WOOD. In 2011, that was probably the best we could get. But 

a formalized rule—and, in fact, Congress codifying the approach selected by the Obama administration is far preferable, because it 

provides certainty. 

Dr. GOSAR. In your opinion, would there ever be an efficient use 

of Fish and Wildlife Service or NMFS resources that would devote 

serious resources and time to analyzing the petitions that are put 

into the low-priority bins? 

Mr. WOOD. If the higher priorities have been exhausted, then, of 

course. But as long as we are going to have a backlog, it makes 

sense for the Service to focus on the species that most require 

consideration. 

Dr. GOSAR. Well, that makes some sense. 

89 

Mr. Dreher makes the allegation of such a dire circumstance 

with climate change, with very few countries initiating and helping 

out. Don’t you think that we ought to be reviewing and utilizing 

every asset that we actually have, if those circumstances are so 

dire? 

Mr. WOOD. Well, I am not sure more money can solve the 

problem. That would just spur more—— 

Dr. GOSAR. I didn’t say money, I said resources. And what I am 

looking at is a group of them, whether they be farmers, whether 

they be corporate entities, whether they be a local county board of 

supervisors. I think those are all considered assets. 

Mr. WOOD. I agree. This isn’t a challenge just being faced by the 

Federal Government. It is something that states and private individuals care about. So, the more we engage with everyone who has 

a stake in the outcome for these species, the better off we will be. 

Dr. GOSAR. And don’t you think that if we did it in a methodology that our mission is to ensure the success of the species. Don’t 

you think that is drive enough? 

Mr. WOOD. I am sorry, I missed the last part of the question. 

Dr. GOSAR. Don’t you think that is drive enough, that if our goal 

is to preserve these species, then we ought to look at enabling and 

empowering any and everyone to have a say in it. 

Mr. WOOD. Absolutely right. And that is the only way you are 

going to get the active efforts you need. 

And to borrow an example from my own past work, we represented property owners affected by the designation of the Utah 

prairie dog. And there, they have been subject to this burdensome 

regulation for decades without any progress. Thanks to a lawsuit, 

we got power shifted back to the states, and now that is the model 

to recover that species. Even the Service admits that that is the 

better approach. 

Dr. GOSAR. So, I guess my question to you is I can have my cake 

and eat it, too, right? 

Mr. WOOD. I think so. I think the conflict we see is unnecessary, 

that so many people care so deeply about recovering species that 

if we engage with them better, we will get better outcomes. 

Dr. GOSAR. You hit a great point there. So, why is it that Mr. 

Dreher—his efforts are higher in priority than, let’s say, the oil and 

gas companies? 

Mr. WOOD. I don’t—— 

Dr. GOSAR. Aren’t they both noble, if we get the results? 

Mr. WOOD. Absolutely. And often, industries like the oil and gas 

companies, farmers, and others have been key partners in protecting and recovering species. And PLF supported the Obama 

administration’s efforts to do that, including in defending a case 

brought by the Defenders of Wildlife to blow up one of those sorts 

of compromises. 

So, I think you are exactly right. We shouldn’t look at anyone as 

an enemy in this challenge. This is something we need all hands 

on deck, and we have to work with each other. 

Dr. GOSAR. But in the conversation today, Mr. Dreher used the 

‘‘boogeyman’’ over and over and over again as oil and gas companies. And I find that disingenuous, because we all inhabit this 

90 

planet together, and we are going to have to collaborate and 

cooperate together to make it work. 

And particularly when you look at the things that we cannot control, like plate tectonics, molten mass, and elliptical orbit around 

an irregular solar mass, that is changing dramatically as we 

speak—so, I mean, it behooves us to use all those assets. And that 

is why, Mr. Dreher, I came at you very hard, is that if you find 

those problems, you ought to be addressing those with us. 

This is an attempt to start that conversation. And if you are part 

of that solution, you are remanded to make changes to facilitate 

the effectiveness of that law. And doing nothing isn’t the answer. 

Thank you, I yield back. 

Mr. DREHER. Mr. Congressman, I really would ask a right to 

reply. I have actually been accused of a number of things by the 

Congressman, and have not had a chance to respond to him. 

As I have said, I think Defenders of Wildlife—and I 

personally—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. The time has expired for Mr. Gosar’s time. 

Mr. DREHER. So, there is no opportunity to reply to personal 

attacks? 

Mr. LAMALFA. Ten seconds. 

Mr. DREHER. All right. We work very hard for conservation of 

species, including things like range mapping, trying to actually find 

out where the species are. We are trying to make things actually 

work better, and that is a much better outcome than anything in 

any of these bills. So, we are trying to make the Act work. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you. 

About 6 minutes left on votes. If you two fellows want to take 

off, I will finish up. Or you are welcome to stay, too. 

I want to just come back, as we finish on this bill, to Mr. 

Johansson. What we hear about is, again, with this backlog, with 

just a blizzard of petitions that come into the various departments 

asking for yet another listing. And you hear the results sometimes, 

when they get so far behind, they want to just settle them all to 

back off the lawsuits that then will come. 

So, what you see is deals being cut, basically to placate the environmental organizations with Ag, with grazing, timber, minerals, 

all that, basically feeling like they are barely hanging on in the 

negotiations. 

For example, in one of the areas in my district, Lassen National 

Forest, you have the martin, red-legged frog, the spotted owl, 

maybe others that are all overlapping in their time frame for what 

would allow timber harvest, and you are down to a limit of a little 

less than 30 days, mostly in September, that you can do logging operations, because of this overlapping. 

What do you see with your experience, whether that applies to 

grazing on certain listings, or timber? How widespread is this settle process and limitation on doing the types of things we need to 

be doing outdoors for industry? 

Mr. JOHANSSON. I am not familiar with the specifics of, as you 

say, the settle—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. Not on that one, but in general. When they 

settle—— 

91 

Mr. JOHANSSON. Well, unfortunately, it becomes a business decision, and it doesn’t become what is the right thing to do, or what 

do I have to do to make my farm better, or my timberland better, 

or my grazing land better, but it becomes a business decision. And 

we are seeing those business decisions being made, which is less 

and less mills in our forest. 

Also, too, in Lassen National Forest, the grazing permits that are 

allowed, those aren’t even all allocated. Even what they do allow 

for cattlemen to graze up there aren’t doing it, because it is simply 

becoming cost-prohibitive, in terms of everything you have to comply with under ESA and other issues, as well. 

But, there is a loss of opportunity, and you are seeing that in our 

rural communities. 

Mr. LAMALFA. And what have you seen on the positive side for 

grazing, maybe, with helping on fire control or even limiting noxious weeds, things like that? 

Mr. JOHANSSON. I think it is a lack of grazing, and one of the 

things, in terms of—we just had an important bill in California 

which we could get you the wording for, that would liberalize what 

we can do in our state lands, and making sure that we can better 

fight wildfires, and that which we have been having the last few 

summers. 

So, yes, at the end of the day we could do much better. And I 

thank you for the opportunity to talk on these nine bills that go 

toward that end. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Mr. Renkes, again, what has your experience been 

in the Department when you get a blizzard of petitions and you fall 

behind just because there are so many that you then feel the pressure that you are going to get sued? Tell me what that looks like 

from your scenario. 

Mr. RENKES. Well, the way that has played out, it has been the 

exposure to litigation, and then the diversion of resources to fight 

litigation, as opposed to working on recovery plans or other aspects 

of the Act that would help. So, there really is no defense that we 

have against litigation over petitions that are overdue. 

We are in a position right now, as I mentioned, where we have 

a decade worth of work to reduce to deal with the current backlog. 

Mr. LAMALFA. As I recall, there was a backlog where about 700, 

maybe just a few short years ago, that it was easier for previous 

administrations to just try to make deals on so many of them to 

get them off their back. If you could, elaborate on that a little bit. 

Mr. RENKES. I am not—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. And how this legislation can help, instead of 

having to settle in a hurry, but more methodical. 

Mr. RENKES. Well, yes, I can speak to that. I am not familiar 

with the settlement process in the previous administration in any 

detail, but this bill would, by creating this petition backlog status 

and changing some of the rules, reduce the pressure of litigation 

on that process and allow those resources to be dedicated to actually dealing with the petitions at hand. That could be very helpful, 

and we support the bill in that regard. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK, thank you. 

Mr. Wood, please touch on that, too, from your perspective. 

92 

Mr. WOOD. I agree. Codifying the approach adopted by the 

Obama administration will provide the agency cover, and give certainty to everyone that the prioritization schedule that has been 

adopted is law, and cannot be blown up by litigation. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK, all right, thank you. We are really on the 

edge on time here. So, indeed, I want to thank the witnesses, all 

of you, for your travel, for your time here today, and your expertise. 

The members of the Committee might have additional questions. 

We will ask you to respond to those in writing. Under Committee 

Rule 3(o), members of the Committee must submit those witness 

questions within 3 business days following today’s hearing by 5:00 

p.m. on that day. The hearing record will be held open for 10 

business days for those responses. 

If there is no further business, without objection, the Committee 

stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:12 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. ANDY BIGGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

I thank Chairman Rob Bishop and Ranking Member Rau ́l Grijalva for holding 

this important legislative hearing. I am honored to join Western Caucus Chairman 

Paul Gosar and colleagues in introducing the Western Caucus ESA Modernization 

package. This package includes my bill, the LIST Act of 2018, which makes a number of improvements to bring the ESA into the 21st century. 

The LIST Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to de-list species from the 

endangered species list when he receives an objective, measurable, and scientific 

study demonstrating a species has recovered; and penalizes those who intentionally 

submit false or fraudulent data in order to cause a species listing. The Act does not 

eliminate protections for truly endangered species. Rather, these actions will allow 

the Federal Government to focus resources toward protecting species that actually 

need it. 

The ESA is one of the most intrusive Federal policies on western states. Over the 

last four decades, ESA regulations, including the listing of endangered species, have 

done more to infringe on private property and states’ rights than they have to recover endangered species. The ESA was created to protect threatened species and 

their habitats; however, biased science and de-listing regulations are often used to 

harm western priorities instead of protecting endangered species. 

Hundreds of species are listed as endangered under the ESA, including the infamous Gray Wolf. Scientific data shows that this species has fully recovered and no 

longer needs Federal protection, but inexplicably remains on the list. This listing 

allows unelected Federal bureaucrats, in the name of protecting the Gray Wolf, to 

limit the use of public lands. It also prevents farmers and ranchers from protecting 

their land and livestock from these predators. 

ESA listings are meant to give short-term support for species recovery; it is not 

supposed to turn into a permanent classification. Current regulations make it much 

easier for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list new species as endangered instead of examining the current list for potential removal. Over the last 45 years, 

less than 2 percent of the total species listed have eventually been de-listed—42 

distinct species out of 2,386 to be exact. Unfortunately, several of the bureaucratic 

processes for de-listing recovered species have broken down or failed entirely. 

Listing a species is not insignificant. These classifications impose costly requirements on private landowners and Federal agencies, and limitations on private and 

public project proposals. 

Radical environmental groups exploit false or fraudulent data in order to cause 

a species to be listed as endangered. Oftentimes, newly discovered or poorly understood species are quickly listed and later turn out to be ecologically abundant. This 

leads to unnecessary costs and burdens for everyone impacted by the listing. 

The Arizona Farm Bureau, which is headquartered in my district, warns that ‘‘as 

the law is written today, the Fish and Wildlife Service is forced to rely on existing 

93 

data however faulty it might be, and petitioners know this and use the lack of 

scientific evidence to force listings.’’ 

ESA regulations not only harm westerners, but Americans across the country. Mr. 

Chairman, we have an opportunity to make a significant change by cutting jobkilling regulations and passing legislation to fix their unintended consequences. The 

Western Caucus ESA modernization package is long overdue and will help millions 

of Americans around the country by protecting local interests—not special interests. 

Rep. Bishop Submissions 

List of 170+ organizations and letters of support endorsing H.R. 6356, 

H.R. 6345, H.R. 6344, H.R. 6355, H.R. 6364, H.R. 6360, H.R. 6346, 

H.R. 6354, and H.R. 3608 

Aethon Energy Land Conservation Assistance 

Network 

American Exploration & Mining 

Association 

National Aquaculture Association 

American Exploration & Production 

Council 

National Association of Conservation 

Districts 

American Farm Bureau Federation National Association of Counties 

(NACo) 

American Highway Users Alliance National Association of Home 

Builders 

American for Limited Government National Association of Realtors 

American Loggers Council National Cotton Council 

American Petroleum Institute National Endangered Species Act 

Reform Coalition (NESARC) 

American Sheep Industry 

Association 

National Grazing Lands Coalition 

Colorado River Energy Distributors 

Association 

National Mining Association 

Family Farm Alliance National Rural Electric Cooperative 

Association 

Federal Forest Resource Coalition Neiman Timber Company 

Free Market America Safari Club International 

Hardwood Federation United Water Conservation District 

Healthy Forests Healthy 

Communities 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

Independent Petroleum Association 

of America 

Western Energy Alliance 

Intermountain Forest Association 

***** 

94 

Agribusiness & Water Council of 

Arizona 

La Paz County Supervisor Duce 

Minor 

Arizona Cattle Feeders Association La Paz County Supervisor D.L. 

Wilson 

Arizona Farm Bureau Federation Minnesota State Cattlemen’s 

Association 

Arizona Mining Association Missouri Sheep Producers 

Arizona Pork Producers Council Mohave County Supervisor Buster 

Johnson 

Arizona Rock Products Association Mohave County Supervisor Gary 

Watson 

California Wool Growers Association Montana Woolgrowers Association 

Campbell County Board of 

Commissioners 

New Mexico Association of 

Conservation Districts 

Colorado Cattlemen’s Association New Mexico Cattlegrowers’ 

Association 

Colorado Farm Bureau New Mexico Federal Lands Council 

Colorado Pork Producers Council New Mexico Wool Growers 

DC Cattle Co LLC Oregon Water Resources Congress 

Florida Farm Bureau Federation Pima Natural Resource Conservation 

District 

Food Resource Group Salt River Project 

Hawaii Aquaculture and Aquaponics 

Association 

Utah Mining Association 

Idaho Farm Bureau Federation United Dairymen of Arizona 

Idaho Water Users Association Wyoming Senate President Eli 

Bebout 

Imperial Irrigation District Yavapai Cattle Growers Association 

Lake Havasu Area Chamber of 

Commerce 

Yuma County Chamber of Commerce 

La Paz County Supervisor Holly 

Irwin 

***** 

Arizona Sportsmen’s Groups: 

Apache County BigGame Forever Mognlian Sporting Association 

Arizona BigGame Forever Northern Arizona BigGame Forever 

Arizona Deer Association Phoenix BigGame Forever 

AZ Bass Nation Southwest Fur Harvesters 

Bass Federation Sportsmen’s Business Alliance 

BASS Junkyz SRT Outdoors 

Flagstaff BigGame Forever Tuscon BigGame Forever 

Malihini Sports Association Wild at Heart Adventures 

Mesa/Gilbert BigGame Forever 

***** 

95 

Colorado Sportsmen’s Groups: 

Boulder BigGame Forever Colorado Sportsmen Make America 

Great 

Centenial BigGame Forever Colorado Springs BigGame Forever 

Colorado BigGame Forever Colorado Wool Growers 

Colorado Mule Deer Association Grand Junction BigGame Forever 

Colorado Outfitters Association Pagosa Springs BigGame Forever 

***** 

Idaho Sportsmen’s Groups: 

BigGame Forever Idaho Northern Idaho BigGame Forever 

Idaho Falls BigGame Forever Pocatello BigGame Forever 

Idaho for Wildlife Save Western Wildlife 

Idaho Sportsmen for Wildlife Twin Falls BigGame Forever 

***** 

Montana Sportsmen’s Groups: 

BigGame Forever Gallatin City Citizens for Balanced Use 

BigGame Forever Missoula Montana Sportsmen for Wildlife 

BigGame Forever Montana Montana Trappers Association 

BigGame Forever Park County Southwest Montana SCI 

BigGame Forever Sweet Grass 

County 

***** 

Oregon Sportsmen’s Groups: 

Oregon United Sporting Dog 

Association. 

***** 

Utah Sportsmen’s Groups: 

Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife Utah BigGame Forever 

***** 

Washington State Sportsmen’s Groups: 

Boeing Employees Everett Gun Club Ruffed Grouse Society—WA 

Borderline Bassin’ Contenders Safari Club International—Central 

WA 

Capitol City Rifle/Pistol Safari Club International—Columbia 

Basin 

Cascade Mountain Men Safari Club International—Inland 

Empire Chapter 

Cascade Tree Hound Club Safari Club International— 

Northwest 

Cedar River Bowmen Safari Club International—Seattle 

Puget Sound 

96 

Citizens for Responsible Wildlife 

Management 

Safari Club International— 

Southwest Washington 

Double U Hunting Supply Seattle Sportsmen’s Conservation 

Foundation 

Edison Sportsmen’s Club Skagit Sportsman and Training 

Association 

Inland NW Wildlife Council Tacoma Sportsmen’s Club 

KBH Archers Vashon Sportsmen’s Club 

Kittitas County Field & Stream Washington Falconer’s Association 

National Wild Turkey Federation— 

South Sound Longbeards 

Washington for Wildlife 

North Flight Waterfowl Washington Game Fowl Breeders 

Association 

Northwest Sportsman’s Club Washington Muzzleloaders 

Association 

NW Field Trial & Hound Association Washington State Archery 

Association 

Okanogan Hound Club Washington State BigGame Forever 

Pacific Flyway Washington State Hound Council 

Pateros Sportsman’s Club Washington State Hunter Heritage 

Council 

Paul Bunyan Rifle and Sportsmen’s 

Club 

Washington State Trappers 

Association 

Pheasants Forever Chapter #257 Washington Waterfowl Association 

Pierce inlandCounty Sportsmen’s 

Council 

Washingtonians for Wildlife 

Conservation 

Richland Rod & Gun Club Wildlife Committee of Washington. 

Morning Consult Poll 

Available at: https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2018 

/09/180941_crosstabs_POLITICO_v1_HS.pdf 

97 

Rep. LaMalfa Submission 

PIT RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT, 

BIEBER, CALIFORNIA

September 14, 2018 

Secretary Ryan Zinke 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Mail Stop 6242 

1849 C Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20240–0001 

Dear Mr. Zinke: 

The Pit Resource Conservation District (RCD) has been working with the USFS 

Modoc National Forest staff to develop a salvage sale on the 30,000+ acre Cove Fire 

area. The RCD proposed to treat a minimal 1,380 burned acres that include: 1) 

hazard trees along roads and trails; 2) salvaging fire-killed conifers; 3) fuels treatments; and 4) site prep and reforestation. The RCD would have preferred to have 

treated a much large area, but given the time restraints, chose to focus on areas 

of extreme importance to the landscape. The partnership was made possible by 

using a Stewardship Agreement that the RCD currently has with the Forest Service 

to expedite the process and assure that valuable timber resources would be utilized 

and important reforestation efforts could be attained. An Environmental Assessment 

(EA) was completed and an Emergency Situation Determination (ESD) was signed 

by the Chief. All NEPA requirements were fully met, and the RCD staff and local 

consultants led this effort. Pre-advertisements and advertisements were noticed in 

the newspapers of record and a list of potential bidders was also noticed by email. 

A bid packet along with timber cruise information was compiled and interested bidders contacted the RCD for the information. The process to complete all required 

activities was very lengthy which caused the sale date to be moved several times. 

This action precluded several interested parties as they were concerned that the 

timber might not be marketable due to the bluing and bug infestation possibilities. 

On July 20, 2018, a public meeting was held to accept and award the bid. There 

was only one bid received which was awarded to Tubit Enterprises, Inc. Tubit began 

the removal process around the end of July and has been actively working on the 

project since. 

Last week, the RCD was notified that Conservation Congress was planning to 

submit a lawsuit against the Forest Service with the intent of an immediate stop 

work order. The basis of the lawsuit is not only unfounded but numerous items 

stated in the court docket are not factual. The Forest Service and the RCD have 

been proactively working together with the Contractor to prepare for the potential 

litigation and severe hardship this will place on all parties. 

The Pit RCD is requesting your support with this process. We believe that salvage 

is vital to forest health and we strongly advocate for the utilization of burned timber 

which promotes economic vitality and helps restore the landscape for public and 

wildlife benefit. The RCD is also interested in future outcomes regarding litigation 

and would like to request that an effort be made to amend current legislation to 

include language that would prevent frivolous lawsuits. It is the belief of the RCD 

that if those parties that are interested in prosecuting be responsible for court costs 

and damages incurred through their actions, this type of litigation could be greatly 

reduced. To that end, we ask that your office work to promote such legislation to 

assist in future endeavors. 

Thank you for your attention to this extremely time sensitive issue and we look 

forward to hearing from you. Please contact our Project Manager, Todd Sloat or 

Business Manager, Sharmie Stevenson for additional information or questions. 

Sincerely, 

ANDY ALBAUGH, 

Chairman. 

98 

1 ‘‘Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction,’’ 

ScienceMag. 2015. http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1400253. 2 Jeremy Bruskotter, John Vucetich, Ramiro Berardo, ‘‘Support for the Endangered Species 

Act remains high as Trump administration and Congress try to gut it.’’ The Conversation, July 

20, 2018. 

Rep. Grijalva Submissions 

September 25, 2018 

Re: Please Oppose H.R. 3608, H.R. 6344, H.R. 6345, H.R. 6346, H.R. 6354, 

H.R. 6355, H.R. 6356, H.R. 6360, and H.R. 6364 (the ‘‘Expanded Wildlife 

Extinction Package’’) 

Dear Representative: 

The House Natural Resources Committee meets this week for a legislative 

hearing on nine bills. This package of legislation would dramatically weaken the 

Endangered Species Act and should be labeled the ‘‘Expanded Wildlife Extinction 

Package.’’ These bills would undermine the role of science in the listing process, 

transfer undue authority to state officials, make it more difficult for species to gain 

federal protections (and easier to lose them), and undercut citizens’ vital role into 

helping to enforce the law. On behalf of our millions of members and activists 

nationwide, we urge you to oppose the ‘‘Expanded Wildlife Extinction 

Package.’’ 

Science shows that we are currently facing a devastating sixth mass extinction. 

According to the latest scientific studies, three-quarters of all species could disappear in the coming centuries.1 The Endangered Species Act is America’s most 

effective law for protecting wildlife in danger of extinction. It serves as an essential 

safety net for imperiled plants, fish, and wildlife. Since its enactment, ninety-nine 

percent of listed species have avoided extinction and many more have been set on 

a path to recovery, including the iconic American bald eagle, the grizzly bear and 

the Florida manatee. The Endangered Species Act has seen such remarkable success—even in the face of dramatic underfunding—because it relies on best-available 

scientific data to make listing decisions and empowers citizens to participate in and 

ensure adequate implementation of the law. The bills before Committee attack these 

fundamental strengths and the very foundation on which the ESA was written, representing a clear and present danger to wildlife preservation nationwide. 

The Endangered Species Act is our nation’s declaration of the fundamental value 

of protecting species from extinction. Recent peer-reviewed research from the Ohio 

State University shows that roughly four out of five Americans support the law.2

Members of Congress should recognize this broad public support and protect the 


31631.001.eps
99 

3The term ‘‘take’’ is defined in the Endangered Species Act to mean harass, harm, pursue, 

hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. 

Endangered Species Act so that it can continue working to save our nation’s remaining plants, fish and wildlife from extinction. We therefore urge you to oppose these 

harmful bills. 

H.R. 3608 (‘‘The Endangered Species Act Transparency and Reasonableness Act’’) would undermine the use of sound science in Endangered Species Act 

listing decisions by declaring that state and local data is by definition the best available science, regardless of whether it is scientifically inferior. Under current law, 

the federal government already works extensively with the states, considers state 

and local data when making listing decisions, and notifies affected states of 

proposed listing determinations. This bill also threatens to undercut citizen enforcement of the Endangered Species Act. Indeed, under H.R. 3608, citizens who successfully challenge illegal government actions under the Endangered Species Act would 

be subject to fee recovery restrictions that could make it difficult for them to obtain 

counsel. In doing so, this bill would make it easier to violate the law with impunity. 

H.R. 6344 (‘‘Land Ownership Collaboration Accelerates Life Act’’) would 

create a loophole in the Endangered Species Act’s prohibition on take 3 of 

endangered species by requiring the Secretary to determine, upon the request of an 

individual, whether a given activity complies with the law. If the Secretary does not 

provide a written determination of compliance within 180 days of receiving the request, the proposed activity will be automatically deemed not to constitute unlawful 

take of a species, effective for five years. If the Secretary determines that the proposed activity is in compliance with the law, then any use or action taken by the 

property owner in ‘‘reasonable reliance’’ would not be considered a violation of the 

law, and would remain effective for 10 years. This loophole could result in the harm 

and/or death of endangered and threatened species, as well as in the destruction of 

critical habitat. Most disturbing, if the Secretary finds that the proposed use would 

not comply with the Endangered Species Act’s take prohibition (or withdraws a no 

take determination), H.R. 6344 would entitle the landowner to financial compensation. Thus, the government would have to expend taxpayer dollars simply to ensure 

compliance with the law. This potential cost would cripple enforcement of the Act. 

H.R. 6345 (‘‘Ensuring Meaningful Petition Outreach While Enhancing 

States Rights Act’’) would severely undermine the Endangered Species Act’s 

science-based listing process by giving state and local governments de facto veto 

authority over decisions to list species as threatened or endangered. Under 

H.R. 6345, if the Secretary finds that a species’ listing may be warranted, he or she 

must solicit information and advice from each state and county in which the species 

is located. If the state or county advises that the listing is not warranted, the 

Secretary may not proceed unless he or she demonstrates that the information submitted in support of an unwarranted finding is incorrect. 

H.R. 6346 (‘‘Weigh Habitats Offsetting Locational Effects Act’’) would 

increase the likelihood that a federal agency action would jeopardize the continued 

existence of a threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The Section 7 consultation process is designed 

to prevent this outcome in part by reviewing a federal agency action’s negative 

effects and considering any offsetting measures, such as avoidance, minimization, or 

mitigation. Yet H.R. 6346 would allow the Secretary to consider non-binding 

offsetting measures. In doing so, this bill increases the risk that a federal agency 

action will have detrimental impact on a species or its habitat. 

H.R. 6354 (‘‘Stop Taking On Reserves Antithetical to Germane Encapsulation Act’’) would restrict designations of critical habitat for threatened or 

endangered species. Specifically, the bill would prohibit the Secretary from designating as critical habitat any area in water storage, diversion, or delivery facilities 

where habitat is periodically created and destroyed as a result of changes in water 

levels caused by the operation of such facility. This could prevent the designation 

of a sufficient amount of a critical habitat necessary for a species to survive. 

H.R. 6355 (‘‘Providing ESA Timing Improvements That Increase 

Opportnnities for Nonlisting Act’’) would undercut citizens’ ability to participate 

in and ensure adequate implementation of the law by weakening the citizen petition 

process and limiting judicial review. H.R. 6355 would automatically trigger denials 

of petitions to list or uplist species in the event of a ‘‘petition backlog’’ as declared 

by the Secretary under the procedures set forth in the bill. Once the backlog has 

been declared, the Secretary would be required to prioritize petitions to delist or 

downlist species over petitions to list or uplist species. In effect, the bill would 

100 

create additional barriers to listing species and automatically deny most listing 

petitions in the event of a declared backlog. What’s more, these automatic negative 

petition findings would be exempt from judicial review. 

H.R. 6356 (‘‘Less Imprecision in Species Treatment Act’’) would make it 

easier to delist species that may not be fully recovered, while simultaneously deterring the public from petitioning to list imperiled species deserving of protection. 

First, the bill would require the Secretary to delist a species without regard to the 

Endangered Species Act’s listing requirements if he or she receives ‘‘substantial 

scientific or commercial information’’ demonstrating that a species is recovered or 

that recovery goals set for a species have been met. Second, if the Secretary determines that a listing was in error, the bill would shield a subsequent delisting decision from judicial review. In doing so, this bill eliminates a vital check on delisting 

decisions that may not have been based on the best available science. Finally, the 

bill would prohibit a citizen from submitting a listing petition for 10 years if they 

‘‘knowingly’’ included inaccurate, fraudulent, or misrepresentative information in a 

listing petition, but does not adequately define how such an inquiry would take 

place. 

H.R. 6360 (‘‘Permit Reassurances Enabling Direct Improvements for 

Conservation, Tenants, and Species Act’’) would weaken existing regulations 

governing cooperative conservation efforts between the Fish and Wildlife Service 

and landowners. Agency regulations currently allow landowners to voluntarily enter 

into Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances, which address conservation measures for species that are anticipated to be listed, and Safe Harbor Agreements, which address conservation measures for listed species. These agreements 

benefit landowners because they grant ‘‘take permits’’ and provide assurances that 

if circumstances involving a species change, they would not be required to undertake additional conservation activities. H.R. 6360 would weaken requirements for 

landowners entering into such agreements and make it more difficult to terminate 

agreements if a landowner fails to meet his or her responsibilities. 

H.R. 6364 (‘‘Localizing Authority of Management Plans Act’’) would undermine the ability of federal agencies to conserve threatened or endangered species 

by delegating significant management authority to state governments and individuals and removing a prohibition against state laws that are less restrictive than the 

Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act currently allows states and 

the federal government to enter into cooperative agreements, wherein states propose 

programs to conserve listed species and the Secretary assists with management of 

these programs. However, H.R. 6364 would delegate management to the states and 

non-federal parties with little to no federal oversight. Furthermore, the bill would 

allow states to enact laws regarding the take of listed species that are less restrictive than federal laws, effectively allowing less protective laws to replace federal 

Endangered Species Act protections. 

Please protect the Endangered Species Act, our nation’s most effective and important law for species conservation, by voting ‘‘no’’ on the ‘‘Expanded Wildlife 

Extinction Package,’’ including H.R. 3608, H.R. 6344, H.R. 6345, H.R. 6346, 

H.R. 6354, H.R. 6355, H.R. 6356, H.R. 6360, and H.R. 6364. These bills constitute an extreme assault on our nation’s wildlife, public participation, 

and one of our most popular and successful laws. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

Alaska Wilderness League National Audubon Society 

American Bird Conservancy National Parks Conservation Assoc. 

American Rivers Natural Resources Defense Council 

Animal Welfare Institute NY4WHALES 

101 

Blue Heron Productions Oceana 

Born Free USA Oregon Wild 

Braided River Public Interest Coalition 

Center for Biological Diversity Quality Parks 

Clean Water Action RE Sources for Sustainable 

Communities 

Defenders of Wildlife Save Animals Facing Extinction 

Delaware Ecumenical Council on 

Children and Families 

Save Wolves Now Network 

Earthjustice Sierra Club 

Earthworks Students for the Salish Sea 

Endangered Habitats League The Bay Institute 

Endangered Species Coalition The Humane Society of the United 

States 

Environment America The Jane Goodall Institute 

Environmental Protection 

Information Center 

The Maine Wolf Coalition, Inc. 

Friends of Blackwater, Inc. The Rewilding Institute 

Friends of the Earth Trap Free Montana 

Great Old Broads for Wilderness Trap Free Montana Public Lands 

Hip Hop Caucus Turtle Island Restoration Network 

Howling For Wolves WE ACT for Environmental Justice 

Humane Society Legislative Fund Wildlands Network 

International Marine Mammal 

Project, Earth Island Institute 

Wolf Conservation Center 

Klamath Forest Alliance Wolf Haven International 

League of Conservation Voters 

GREENLATINOS

September 26, 2018 

Hon. RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, Ranking Member, 

House Committee on Natural Resources, 

1329 Longworth House Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Re: OPPOSITION TO Endangered Species Act ROLLBACKS 

Dear Ranking Member Grijalva: 

On behalf of GreenLatinos—a national network of Latino environmental and 

conservation advocates—I write to you with concerns over the continued rollbacks 

and legislative attacks to the Endangered Species Act (ESA); one of this nation’s 

bedrock environmental laws. The ESA is one of our most important conservation 

laws. Over 99% of the species that have received ESA protection are still with us 

today, and 90% of listed species are on track to meet their recovery goals. 

GreenLatinos conducted a post-election survey in 2016 that found that 97% of 

Hispanic voters felt that they and those that represent them have ‘‘a moral responsibility to take care of the earth—the wilderness and forests, the oceans, lakes, and 

rivers.’’ It is our view, this protection of critical landscapes and habitat extend to 

the rich biodiversity that those habitats support—especially those species that are 

threatened or endangered. 

Tomorrow, your committee will mark up several bills that would further weaken 

the critical protections enshrined in the ESA. GreenLatinos has deep concerns with 

102 

any attempts to weaken such protections, in particular with H.R. 6345 (Rep. 

Pearce)—The EMPOWERS Act; H.R. 6355 (Rep. Westerman)—The PETITION Act; 

H.R. 3608 (Rep. McClintock)—The Endangered Species Transparency and Reasonableness Act; and H.R. 6346 (Rep. Johnson)—The WHOLE Act. The goal of each of 

these bills is to weaken the ESA, not to make it ‘‘work better,’’ and enacting these 

bills into law would drive to the extinction of fish, wildlife, and plants in America 

and around the globe. 

The ESA has strong support among our membership, and among the 27.3 million 

Latino voters that our organization and its members interface with regularly in 

communities across the country. It does not need to be ‘‘reformed’’ or ‘‘modernized.’’ 

It is an effective law that gives all stakeholders an incredible amount of flexibility 

to proceed with projects in a way that protects biodiversity. 

We urge you to consider these views and encourage you and your fellow 

committee members to defend the ESA and its protective provisions from being 

weakened by the continued attacks represented through these ESA rollback bills. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 

Sincerely, 

JESSICA M. LOYA, 

National Policy Director. 

September 25, 2018 

Dear Members of Congress: 

As denominations representing a broad spectrum of religious traditions and more 

than 10 million congregants, we write to you today unified in our support for the 

protection of God’s precious and good creation and in particular the Endangered 

Species Act. This bedrock piece of conservation law has been extremely effective in 

preventing species from becoming extinct and we urge Congress to uphold this 

critical piece of legislation. Dismantling it or entangling it in unnecessary and damaging modifications or loopholes will only serve to diminish its effectiveness. 

Our Scriptures are filled with messages about taking care of Creation. In those 

passages, we are reminded that the world belongs to God and we are instructed to 

be stewards of God’s earth. The story of Noah’s ark sets forth an example for us 

to follow as we care for creatures great and small. God’s instructions were clear to 

Noah: protect each and every one, two by two. We note that in the story, following 

the flood, God’s covenant with Noah and his descendants as well as with the 

entirety of Creation makes it clear that God views Creation, both human and nonhuman, as valuable and as being in relationship with one another. 

It is with this perspective that we view the Endangered Species Act, a modern 

day Noah’s Ark that can preserve the creation that God has bestowed in our care. 

Any action, legislative or otherwise, that weakens the Endangered Species Act or 

puts economics or individual interests before our duty as stewards runs contrary to 

our moral charge. 

Because of our strong conviction that God entrusted the care of Creation to us, 

including the most vulnerable species, religious denominations over the years have 

released policy statements urging that we, as a nation, uphold our duty to steward 

God’s creatures. In 1993, the General Synod of the United Church of Christ passed 

a resolution entitled ‘‘Respect for Animals,’’ that reminds church members that God 

has given humanity responsibility for the care and protection of all living creatures. 

Following that resolution, a 2001 statement passed by the 213th General 

Assembly of the Presbyterian Church that called for government ‘‘face the severity 

of thus (mass extinction) threat, and to take the steps in practice, polity and 

systemic change that will prevent mass extinction and preserve the biodiversity essential to the flourishing of life.’’ The United Methodist Church, one of the largest 

religious denominations in the country, also issued a policy statement on the 

‘‘Preservation of the Diversity of Life,’’ which stated ‘‘that the wondrous diversity 

of nature is a key part of God’s plan for creation. Therefore, we oppose measures 

which would eliminate diversity in plant and animal varieties, eliminate species, or 

destroy habitats critical to the survival of endangered species.’’ Inspired by the commandment of Bal Taschit, do not destroy, the Union for Reform Judaism passed a 

resolution in 1991 calling on the government to ‘‘protect our current wilderness 

areas, create new ones, and work to protect ecologically sensitive and endangered 

bioregions of the world’’ and ‘‘ensure the continuation of animal and plant species.’’ 

103 

The set of nine bills introduced this summer run counter to our stewardship 

mandate for species protection. Taken collectively, these nine bills would work to 

undermine the current Endangered Species Act, which has been one of our most 

successful tools for preventing extinction. This package of bills creates loopholes, allows for state veto rights, limits legal recourse, and resurrects barriers to listing 

species. These bills are not science-based and will undercut the ability of current 

and future endangered and threatened species to survive. 

We urge the House Natural Resources Committee to reject this package of nine 

bills that would be detrimental to the Endangered Species Act and thus to God’s 

creation. 

Sincerely, 

Rev. Jimmie R Hawkins, Director, Rabbi Jonah Pesner Director, 

Presbyterian Church (USA) Office of 

Public Witness 

Religious Action Center for Reform 

Judaism 

Rev. Sandy Sorenson, Director, 

Washington Office 

Rev. Dr. Susan Henry-Crowe, 

General Secretary, 

United Church of Christ, Justice and 

Local Church Ministries 

General Board of Church and 

Society, The United Methodist 

Church 

Comments of the Attorneys General of Massachusetts, 

California, Maryland, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, 

Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of 

Columbia 

Available at: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/multistate_ag_ 

comments_on_esa_listing_interagency_cooperation.pdf 

Æ