U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

82–446 PDF 2014

TRANSPARENCY AND SOUND SCIENCE 

GONE EXTINCT?: THE IMPACTS OF THE 

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S CLOSEDDOOR SETTLEMENTS ON ENDANGERED 

SPECIES AND PEOPLE

OVERSIGHT HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

Thursday, August 1, 2013

Serial No. 113–37

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

(

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

or 

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, OR, Ranking Democratic Member

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Steve Southerland, II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Mark E. Amodei, NV 

Markwayne Mullin, OK 

Chris Stewart, UT 

Steve Daines, MT 

Kevin Cramer, ND 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jason T. Smith, MO 

Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Tony Ca ́ rdenas, CA 

Steven A. Horsford, NV 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Carol Shea-Porter, NH 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Joe Garcia, FL 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Vacancy

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel 

Penny Dodge, Democratic Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel 

(III)

CONTENTS 

Page

Hearing held on Thursday, August 1, 2013 ........................................................... 1

Statement of Members: 

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

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

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

Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Washington .................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3

Statement of Witnesses: 

Ashe, Dan, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Washington, D.C. ................................................................ 16

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

McMullen, Kent D., Chairman, Franklin County Natural Resources 

Advisory Committee, Pasco, Washington .................................................... 21

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 22

Ramey, Rob Roy, II, Ph.D., Nederland, Colorado .......................................... 26

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 28

Schiff, Damien M., Principal Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation, 

Sacramento, California ................................................................................. 6

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

Additional materials supplied: 

Combs, Susan, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Austin, Texas, 

Statement submitted for the record ............................................................ 14

(1)

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ‘‘TRANSPARENCY 

AND SOUND SCIENCE GONE EXTINCT?: THE 

IMPACTS OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S CLOSED-DOOR SETTLEMENTS ON 

ENDANGERED SPECIES AND PEOPLE’’

Thursday, August 1, 2013

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doc Hastings [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Hastings, Gohmert, Bishop, Lamborn, 

McClintock, Lummis, Tipton, Gosar, Southerland, Mullin, Stewart, 

LaMalfa, DeFazio, Costa, and Shea-Porter. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will come to order, and the 

Chairman notes the presence of a quorum. In fact, we far exceeded 

our quorum; thank you for being here. 

The Committee on Natural Resources is meeting today to hear 

testimony on an oversight hearing on: ‘‘Transparency and Sound 

Science Gone Extinct?: The Impacts of the Obama Administration’s 

Closed-Door Settlements on Endangered Species and People.’’

Under Committee Rule 4(f), opening statements are limited to 

the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Committee. However, I ask unanimous consent that any Member that wishes to 

have an opening statement have it to the Committee prior to close 

of business today. 

[No response.] 

The CHAIRMAN. And without objection, so ordered. I will now recognize myself for my opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

The CHAIRMAN. Today the Committee continues oversight of the 

Endangered Species Act, with a specific focus on the lack of transparency of data and science used in literally hundreds of sweeping 

listing and habitat designation decisions that affect both the species and people. 

This Administration publicly touts that it is ‘‘the most transparent in history.’’ However, its ESA-related actions, through executive orders, court settlements with litigious groups, and rules to 

list species, instead force regulatory actions that shut out of the 

process Congress, it shuts out of the process States, local communities, and private landowners, and even science, scientists who 

may dispute the often sketchy and unverifiable data used in these 

decisions. 

2

Yesterday I learned that the Interior Office of Inspector General 

has issued a notice raising allegations of serious scientific misconduct by Fish and Wildlife Service officials and that the Department’s senior leadership failed to address these issues for over a 

year. Now, I have requested—the Committee has requested and 

will expect a response to these allegations as quickly as possible. 

Last month the Fish and Wildlife Service Director told Western 

Governors that the mega-settlements have helped decrease the 

amount of ‘‘deadline’’ lawsuits by environmental groups. That was 

told to Western Governors. However, public documents reveal the 

same groups involved in the mega-settlements have filed or threatened to file more than 125 new ESA-related lawsuits against the 

Service just in the past 2 years. These self-imposed deadlines are 

creating legal dilemmas for the Service on decisions on whether 

and when to list more than 750 new species that would designate 

millions of acres of habitat over the next 4 years. 

Within the past 2 months, the Service has already been forced 

to seek permission from litigious groups and the court to extend 

settlement deadlines to allow for more public input and consideration of new data and science that are required by law. Several 

Western States are legitimately concerned about the lack of transparency of the Greater Sage-Grouse, but their—the technical documents supporting that were developed by the Service and BLM. 

States were promised prompt approval of State-developed conservation plan, but the Service’s deadlines and questionable science 

could force a listing and block activities on a million of acres of 

mining and grazing lands. 

Recent Freedom of Information Act documents received by the 

State of Idaho suggest serious interference by multiple Interior officials in the development of the National Technical Team Report. 

Now, our committee has requested those documents, and it has 

been nearly 5 months since we have requested those documents. 

We have yet to receive those documents that were acquired by 

FOIA—by the State of Idaho. The Service has failed to provide 

those emails, but I certainly expect that we will get those, now that 

this has been made public. And that is why I mention that. 

Last year, the Service finalized a highly questionable rule to designate nearly 10 million acres of habitat in Washington, Oregon, 

and California for the Northern Spotted Owl. Despite this, the 

number of owls continue to decline, due primarily to the Barred 

Owl. And what has been the response? What I heard in the news 

is they are going to go after the Barred Owl. Does this make sense? 

Another recent example of the Service’s transparency failings is 

occurring in the Congressional District that I represent in Central 

Washington with the White Bluffs Bladderpod, a plant that is slated to be listed under the settlement work plan this year. The Service failed to consult the local county or affected landowners on why 

it considers critical 419 acres of habitat it proposes to designate on 

private property. 

Yet a recent university research that was funded, by the way, by 

affected landowners confirms that the plant’s DNA is indistinguishable from bladderpod plants in other areas, and it may mean the 

plant doesn’t require listing at all. Now, the question is, why didn’t 

the Service do due diligence to that point? 

3

So, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today about how 

to improve transparency of the ESA that affects species and people. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Doc Hastings, Chairman,

Committee on Natural Resources

Today the Committee continues oversight of the Endangered Species Act, with a 

specific focus on the lack of transparency of data and science used in literally hundreds of sweeping listing and habitat designation decisions that affect both species 

and people. 

The Obama Administration publicly touts that it is ‘‘the most transparent in history.’’ However, it’s ESA-related actions—through executive orders, court settlements with litigious groups, and rules to list species—instead force regulatory actions that shut out Congress, states, local communities, private landowners—even 

scientists who may dispute the often sketchy or unverifiable data used for these decisions. 

Yesterday, I learned the Interior Office of Inspector General has issued a notice 

raising allegations of serious scientific misconduct by Fish and Wildlife Service officials and that the Department’s senior leadership failed to address these issues for 

over a year. I have requested and will expect a transparent response to these allegations as quickly as possible. 

Last month, the Fish and Wildlife Service Director told Western governors that 

the mega-settlements have helped decrease the amount of ‘‘deadline’’ lawsuits by environmental groups. However, public documents reveal the same groups involved in 

the mega-settlements have filed or threatened more than 125 new ESA-related lawsuits against the Service over just the past two years. 

Two weeks ago, I asked Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell if the Administration favored meeting court deadlines over ensuring best science. Clearly, these selfimposed deadlines are creating legal dilemmas for the Service on decisions whether 

and when to list more than 750 new species and designate millions of acres of habitat over the next four years. 

Within the past two months, the Service has already been forced to seek permission from litigious groups and the court to extend settlement deadlines to allow for 

more public input and consideration of new data and science that are required by 

law. 

Several Western states are legitimately concerned about the lack of transparency 

of Greater Sage Grouse technical documents developed by the Service and the Bureau of Land Management. States were promised prompt approval of state-developed conservation plans, but the Service’s deadlines and questionable science could 

force a listing and block activities on millions of acres of mining and grazing lands. 

Recent Freedom of Information Act documents received by the State of Idaho suggest serious interference by multiple Interior officials in the development of the National Technical Team Report. It has been nearly five months since the Committee 

requested documents from the Service relating to their sage grouse efforts. 

As of this date, the Service has failed to provide requested emails and communications about sage grouse efforts. I expect the Director to provide the Committee the 

documents as requested. 

Last year, the Service finalized a highly questionable rule to designate nearly 10 

million acres of habitat in Washington, Oregon, and California for the Northern 

Spotted Owl—doubling down on twenty years of failed federal forest management. 

Despite this, the numbers of owls continues to decline, due primarily to catastrophic 

wildfires and another, larger predatory species of owl. 

The rule comes amidst recent reports that the Service for years contracted with 

biologists who are now under federal investigation for embezzling nearly $1 million 

in federal funds that were intended specifically for northern spotted owl research. 

The most recent example of the Service’s transparency failings is occurring in the 

Congressional District I represent in Central Washington with the White Bluffs 

Bladderpod—a plant that is slated to be listed under the settlement ‘‘workplan’’ this 

year. The Service failed to consult the local county or affected landowners on why 

it considers ‘‘critical’’ 419 acres of habitat it proposes to designate on private property. 

A recent university research study confirms the plant’s DNA is indistinguishable 

from bladderpod plants in other areas, and may mean the plant doesn’t require listing at all. I expect a commitment today from the Service that it will withdraw its 

listing proposal and re-evaluate the science in light of this new information. 

4

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses about how to improve transparency 

of ESA decisions that deeply affect species and people. 

The CHAIRMAN. And with that I will yield to the distinguished 

Ranking Member for his comments. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETER A. DEFAZIO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. DEFAZIO. As on several other issues that have come up recently before the Committee—hazardous fuel reduction and others—I think we have some potential here for a balanced, reasonable, and honest conversation. I am not going to say the Act is perfect. I mean the Endangered Species Act has not been reauthorized 

since 1992. Our understanding of species and their needs and 

science has come a long way since 1992. 

I was involved in an effort back in 1997 with George Miller from 

California, and we attempted, with a bipartisan approach, to reauthorize the Endangered Species Act and make it more relevant, at 

least in 1997, to our understanding of science and needs. Some of 

those things still have not been fully adopted and still would merit 

consideration in a reauthorization. We have provisions to provide 

more certainty to land owners who were required to develop habitat conservation plans. That is an enduring problem. 

We would require the Federal Government to work with States 

on species recovery plan development implementation. We have 

heard a lot about sage-grouse and other things and frustrations 

with States on the Committee in testimony in the last few weeks. 

Those kinds of provisions that Mr. Miller and I had at that time 

would help the States to be more involved as active partners and 

participants, not to short-circuit the law, not to ignore the needs 

of species, but to more cooperatively develop a viable scientifically 

based plan to recover or protect those species. 

And then, in particular, we had a provision to deal with multiple 

species conservation plans. That is, move toward an ecosystembased approach. We often find that individual species in proximity 

to one another have conflicting needs. I remember a discussion of 

the Kootenai sturgeon—and this was between two dams—and it 

can only spawn with high flows. But those same high flows were 

detrimental to an endangered stock of salmon, who happened to be 

migrating up the river at that point in time. 

So, we need to deal with these things in a way that makes sense 

for all the species. I was out in the forest with Drs. Franklin and 

Johnson last year, looking at what they have as new science regarding the needs of the owl and what are the real needs in the 

western forest systems, at least in Southwest Oregon. And there 

was a Fish and Wildlife representative there, and we got involved 

in a very active discussion, because the scientists were proposing 

to remove some rather large fir trees in an area that had been 

dominated by pine. 

And one of the environmentalists there was very upset at the 

idea of the timber volume coming out. And they said, ‘‘Well, but 

this is based in science, and those trees don’t belong there, and 

they are detrimental to the long-term health of the stand, and they 

5

are not something that is needed for the recovery of the owl.’’ And 

the person kept persisting. 

And then, finally, the Fish and Wildlife representative said, ‘‘You 

know, what is good for the forest is good for the owl.’’ So, a larger 

perspective view of these endangered species problems I believe 

would benefit everybody. Transparency, to me—I mean there is 

just no question that there should be transparency throughout this 

entire process. And there is no reason that these decisions are 

made behind closed doors or without full revelation of the science 

involved. So I would agree there. 

But there are other changes that need to be proactively made. 

And I would hope that we won’t go down the false path, as we did 

with former Chairman Pombo in totally gutting the Act, but instead look at bringing the Act up to date in terms of our new understandings, and provide some of the flexibility I just discussed 

here. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. DeFazio follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Peter A. DeFazio, Ranking Member,

Committee on Natural Resources

Today, the majority has called the latest in a series of what have so far been unproductive oversight hearings on the Endangered Species Act. I am the first to 

admit that the ESA is not perfect. I understand and remain frustrated by the significant challenges that efforts to protect and restore salmon runs and populations 

of the northern spotted owl have posed to communities and businesses in my state 

of Oregon. But to hear Republicans on the Committee tell it, you would think protection of endangered species had crippled the U.S. economy and destroyed the 

American system of private property rights. We need to have a more balanced, reasonable, and honest conversation. 

We also need to put some things in perspective. We have plowed or paved 99 percent of our country’s tallgrass prairie, cut down 95 percent of our old growth forests, 

and filled in more than half of our wetlands in the lower 48 states. This massive 

alteration of some of our most diverse and productive landscapes has made it nearly 

impossible for many species of plants and animals to survive without the ESA’s protection. 

I have long supported moving away from a focus on individual species toward a 

strategy that protects and restores endangered ecosystems. A proactive, adaptive, 

and collaborative approach that creates partnerships in conservation between governments, landowners, and other stakeholders seems a much more intelligent way 

to go about preserving the valuable biodiversity and environmental services that 

healthy ecosystems provide. As Paul Henson, the Fish and Wildlife Service director 

for Oregon told me once during a forest tour: ‘‘what’s good for the forest is good for 

the owl.’’

Right now, however, the ESA is the only tool we have to hold the line against 

massive extinction of species, and in that regard the law has been incredibly effective. Ninety-nine percent of all species listed as threatened or endangered under the 

Act still exist. The ESA has also produced some major success stories. The gray 

whale, which was declared recovered in 1994, is the main attraction of Oregon 

whale watching, which draws tens of thousands of tourists to our coasts and generates millions of dollars for our economy each year. And the bald eagle, a national 

symbol once on the brink of extinction, can now be seen from coast to coast. 

Some on this Committee would prefer to ignore these facts, focusing instead on 

what they believe is a glut of frivolous lawsuits and sweetheart-deal settlements between federal agencies and conservation groups. To be clear, settlement agreements 

are a legitimate and cost effective way to avoid drawn out, expensive courtroom battles. Further, the suggestion that the citizen suit provisions of the ESA and other 

environmental statutes are somehow making government less transparent is flat out 

wrong. The ability of affected parties to hold their government accountable is a cornerstone of our democracy. 

I am committed to finding commonsense ways to protect our environment while 

promoting economic development. I am encouraged that agencies tasked with implementing the ESA are starting to show signs of more flexibility in the form of CanVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:53 Jan 16, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Y:\00FULL~1\00AU01\8-1-13~1\82446.TXT MARK
6

didate Conservation Agreements and other strategies to help facilitate proactive 

conservation that minimizes the impacts to economic interests. I would encourage 

more of that kind of creative activity, and I look forward to hearing from Director 

Ashe about the Fish and Wildlife Service’s efforts. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman for his statement and, obviously, for his willingness to work on this issue, because it does 

affect us. And I think coming from the Western part of the United 

States, this probably affects us more than other parts of the country. 

But I want to thank the first panel of witnesses. We have Mr. 

Damien Schiff, who is the principal attorney for the Pacific Legal 

Foundation out of Sacramento, California; Mr. Dan Ashe, who is 

the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service here, in Washington, D.C.—thank you for coming, Director Ashe. And I have a 

constituent of mine, Mr. Kent McMullen. He is the Chairman of 

the Franklin County Natural Resources Advisory Committee that 

is based in my home town of Pasco, Washington. And he is accompanied, I might add, by a Franklin County Commissioner, also a 

constituent, Brad Peck, sitting right behind the next person I am 

going to introduce, who is Dr. Rob Roy Ramey—Ramey? I could 

have gone both ways, and I went the right way. He is a Ph.D. from 

Nederland, Colorado. 

Let me point out how, if you haven’t had the opportunity to testify here, how this works. We have timing lights. First of all, the 

statement that we asked you to submit, the statement in its entirety, will be part of the record. But I would ask you to keep your 

oral remarks to within the 5 minutes. And the way this fancy machine works here, when you start the green light will come on, and 

that means you are just doing fabulously well. But when the yellow 

light comes on, it means that you have 1 minute to go. And I would 

try to ask you to wrap it up before the red light comes on, because 

we—it doesn’t look like it, but those seats are special seats there 

that—no, I am just kidding. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. At any rate, if you could keep the response within the 5 minutes, we would very much appreciate it. And we will 

start with Mr. Damien Schiff. Mr. Schiff, you are recognized for 5 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DAMIEN M. SCHIFF, PRINCIPAL ATTORNEY, 

PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is Damien Schiff. I am a principal attorney in the 

environmental practice section of the Pacific Legal Foundation. 

Founded in 1973, PLF is the Nation’s oldest public interest legal 

foundation, fighting for the protection of private property rights 

and individual liberty in State and Federal courts throughout the 

country. And today I will focus my testimony on the Endangered 

Species Act and provide, for me, troubling examples of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service’s practice of settling, rather than defending controversial litigation with environmental groups, with the 

upshot that private property owners are unjustly burdened. 

7

Commencing in the 1990s, the Service regularly designated critical habitat in conjunction with the listing of species, and these 

designations tended to be very broad, often times including habitat 

that was marginal, at best. During the George W. Bush Administration, under the leadership of Julie MacDonald, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, the Service changed its 

approach, adopting, in my view, a more scientifically and factually 

credible standard. 

Secretary MacDonald demanded that the Service employees demonstrate that their actions, such as designating critical habitat, be 

supported by adequate data. In particular, Secretary MacDonald, 

who was skeptical of the designation of ‘‘unoccupied critical habitat.’’ But in the wake of a negative Inspector General report and 

the change in Administration, the Service resumed its prior less 

rigorous and legally deficient approach. 

For example—environmentalist lawsuits and relying on the Inspector General report, the Service refused to continue to defend 

against legal challenge the 2007 critical habitat designation for the 

spikedace and loach minnow, two fish found in streams in New 

Mexico and Arizona, as well as the 2005 designation for the bull 

trout, found in Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Idaho, and Montana. 

In both cases, Pacific Legal Foundation attorneys represented organizations of affected property owners who had intervened in 

these lawsuits to prevent the expansion of critical habitat. In both 

cases, the Service obtained the requested remand from the Federal 

court, and following remand, the Service increased the amount of 

critical habitat—in the case of the spikedace and loach minnow by 

20 percent, in the case of the bull trout, the Service increased lake 

habitat by 140 percent, and its stream habitat by 400 percent. 

In other cases, as well, the Service has been quite friendly to the 

environmentalist critique. For example, in 2007, the Service issued 

critical habitat for the Hine’s emerald dragonfly. Environmental 

groups then sued, claiming that the Service wrongfully excluded 

about 13,000 acres of habitat in two already-protected national forests in Michigan and Missouri. The Administration changed and, 

not surprisingly, the environmental groups and the Service settled, 

with the Agency agreeing to re-analyze the designation. And then 

the Service issued a new designation that more than doubled the 

size of the prior designation. 

Similarly, Wild Earth Guardians, an environmentalist organization, sued the Service in 2008 over the Agency’s failure to designate 

critical habitat for the Shirakawa leopard frog. The Service listed 

the frog in 2002, but determined at that time that critical habitat 

designation would not be prudent. Wild Earth Guardians’ suit 

sought to overturn the Service’s determination. And after substantive briefing had commenced, and a change in administration, 

the Service settled the case. In the settlement the Service agreed 

to revisit its determination and, ultimately, the Service designated 

over 10,000 acres of critical habitat. 

And one final example. The western snowy plover is a shore bird 

listed in 1993 whose habitat extends from Central California up to 

the Canadian border. The Service originally designated critical 

habitat for the bird in 1999, but that designation was successfully 

8

challenged in 2003 for the Service’s failure to conduct an adequate 

economic impact assessment. 

In 2005, the Service published a revised, less expensive critical 

habitat designation. But in 2008, the Center for Biological Diversity sued the Service, contending that many areas were improperly 

excluded from the designation. Pacific Legal Foundation attorneys 

intervened in this lawsuit on behalf of land owners and off-road vehicle enthusiasts, whose property and dune buggy grounds the 

Center wanted included in critical habitat. Sadly, rather than defend the designation, the Service chose to settle. The Foundation’s 

clients were given no opportunity to participate in these settlement 

discussions. And in 2012 the Service issued a new critical habitat 

designation that nearly doubled the size of the 2005 designation 

and included our client’s formerly excluded properties. 

In conclusion, reasonable people can disagree about the utility 

and morality of the Endangered Species Act. But in my view, no 

one can legitimately approve of a less-than-transparent administration of that Act. Unfortunately, over the last several decades, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has implemented the Act in a way 

that, frankly, puts Agency policy ahead of the law and the public 

interest. 

Moreover, the Agency’s administration of the Act sometimes 

bears no relationship to the best interests of protected species, but 

serves only to aggrandize government power or satisfy particularly 

litigious environmental groups. Unfortunately, this practice has 

continued through the current Administration. 

Groups like Pacific Legal Foundation can help prevent individual 

injustices, but systematic improvement to the Act and its administration is this Committee’s and Congress’s prerogative and duty. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schiff follows:]

Statement of Damien M. Schiff, Principal Attorney,

Pacific Legal Foundation, Sacramento, California

I. Introduction

The topic of this hearing is the negative effects of close-door settlements arising 

out of Endangered Species Act litigation during the Obama Administration. My fellow panelists will ably discuss this particular subject. I, however, would like to address the subject of transparency and the Endangered Species Act a little more 

broadly, because some of the issues that have arisen during the current Administration are perennial, and reflect persistent failings in the manner in which the United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service administer 

the Act. 

II. Failing to delist expeditiously

The goal of the Endangered Species Act is to bring species from the brink of extinction to recovery, so that the species no longer need the Act’s protections. See 16 

U.S.C. § 1531(b). One would think that the Services would be eager to delist species 

or ‘‘downlist’’ them from endangered to threatened status, to prove the Act’s effectiveness. Remarkably, the opposite is true: the Services rarely act to delist or 

downlist a species, even when they acknowledge that the species merits delisting 

or downlisting. To make matters worse, the agencies have essentially adopted the 

policy that no delisting or downlisting will occur unless and until a court orders it 

to happen. Below, I discuss two examples that demonstrate this troubling practice. 

A. The bald eagle 

In 1999, the Fish and Wildlife Service announced the recovery of the bald eagle 

and formally proposed to delist it from the Act. See 64 Fed. Reg. 36,454 (July 6, 

1999). Yet the Service did not act on that proposal until 2007, see 72 Fed. Reg. 

37,346 (July 9, 2007), only after having been forced to by court order as a result 

9

1See http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FWS-R8-ES-2011-0063-0037 (last visited 

July 24, 2013). 2See http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FWS-R8-ES-2011-0063-0029 (last visited 

July 24, 2013). 3See http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc779.pdf (last visited July 24, 2013). 

of a lawsuit brought by Pacific Legal Foundation attorneys on behalf of Edmund 

Contoski, a Minnesota landowner. See Contoski v. Scarlett, 2006 WL 2331180 (D. 

Minn. Aug. 10, 2006). Mr. Contoski owned several acres of lakefront property in 

northern Minnesota. He wanted to subdivide the property and ultimately construct 

a vacation cabin on it. Unfortunately, the property contained an active bald eagle’s 

nest. Under the Service’s Endangered Species Act eagle management guidelines, 

Mr. Contoski was unable to construct anything within several hundred feet of the 

eagle nest. And yet, the Service had acknowledged that the eagle had recovered and 

no longer needed these protections. Mr. Contoski’s development plans, and his property rights, were put on hold for eight years for no reason whatsoever. 

The Service says at one time that the eagle is recovered, yet at another that private property owners must suffer devaluation of their property for no valid reason. 

Where is the transparency? 

B. The Valley elderberry longhorn beetle 

A similar sad story of lack of transparency can be found in the controversy over 

the Valley elderberry longhorn beetle. The beetle, native to California’s Central Valley, was listed as a threatened species with designated critical habitat in 1980. See

45 Fed. Reg. 52,803 (Aug. 8, 1980). As a result of the beetle’s listing and habitat 

protections, property owners, farmers, and levee districts have been significantly injured. If one has an occupied elberberry bush on one’s property, it is nearly impossible to develop the property, or to farm it, or to maintain the flood control levees 

on which the bush sits. Mitigation for elderberry bushes can run into the hundreds 

of thousands of dollars. For example, the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency is a 

joint powers agency with jurisdiction over flood control facilities in the northern part 

of California’s Sacramento Valley. The Agency is trying to fund a project to remedy 

geotechnical deficiencies in 41 miles of levee along the Feather River. The total cost 

of the project is about $30,000,000, of which $4,250,000 is for elderberry bush mitigation. That mitigation price amounts to 15% of the first-year construction cost, or 

almost one mile of additional levee that could be repaired.1

The safety threats from the beetle’s listing do not end with higher costs. As Levee 

District 1 of Sutter County—one of California’s oldest flood control agencies—explained in a recent comment letter to the Service, the beetle’s regulation prevents 

needed flood safety practices, e.g., elderberry bushes can greatly interfere with the 

visual inspections that flood control agencies must conduct for levee maintenance.2

One would think that the Service would ensure an expeditious delisting of the 

beetle once it has been demonstrated to have recovered. To the contrary, the Service 

has dawdled, much to the detriment of property owners and public safety. In 2006, 

the Service determined that the beetle had recovered.3 Yet the agency did not begin 

the delisting process until Pacific Legal Foundation attorneys filed a lawsuit on behalf of affected property owners, farmers, levee districts, and other organizations to 

force the Service to act on its own conclusions. See N. Sacramento Land Co. v. U.S. 

Fish & Wildlife Serv., 2:12–cv–00618JAM–CKD (filed Mar. 12, 2012). In 2012, the 

Service finally proposed to delist the beetle, some six years after determining that 

it had recovered. See 77 Fed. Reg. 60,238 (Oct. 2, 2012). 

The Service’s conduct in the beetle case is part of a larger problem. The Act requires that the Service conduct a status review every five years for each listed species, to determine whether listing is still appropriate. See 16 U.S.C. § 1533(c)(2). The 

Service, however, has taken the position that it is not required to do anything as 

a result of such status reviews, unless and until an interested party petitions for 

action and then follows up with a lawsuit. See Coos County Bd. of County Comm’rs 

v. Kempthorne, 531 F.3d 792 (9th Cir. 2008). Most members of the regulated public, 

however, are not in a position to file lawsuits so easily. Thus, many species continue 

to receive the protections of the Act even when they are not necessary, and innocent 

property owners must continue to suffer needlessly. 

The Service says that a species is recovered, yet resists delisting to allow affected 

property owners and local agencies the freedom to act as they need to. Where is the 

transparency? 

III. Critical habitat

The Act authorizes the Services to designate ‘‘critical habitat’’ for listed species. 

16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)(3)(A)(i). In practice, critical habitat can have a significant negaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:53 Jan 16, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Y:\00FULL~1\00AU01\8-1-13~1\82446.TXT MARK
10

4See http://www.fws.gov/economics/Critical%20Habitat/Final%20Draft%20Reports/CA%20

coastal%20gnatcatcher/CAGN_DEA_Feb2004.pdf (last visited July 24, 2013). 5See http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/12/report_interior_

office_meddled.html (last visited July 24, 2013). 6See http://www.uschamber.com/reports/sue-and-settle-regulating-behind-closed-doors (last visited July 25, 2013). 

tive economic impact on the value of private property. As just one particularly glaring proof: the Fish and Wildlife Service itself estimated that the annual economic 

impact of critical habitat designation for the California gnatcatcher is over 

$100,000,000.4

Commencing in the 1990s, the Services regularly designated critical habitat in 

conjunction with the listing of species. These designations tended to be very broad, 

oftentimes including habitat that was marginal at best. See Home Builders Ass’n of 

N. Cal. V. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 268 F. Supp. 2d 1197 (E.D. Cal. 2003), overruled in part, Home Builders Ass’n of N. Cal. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 616 F.3d 

983 (9th Cir. 2010). 

During the Bush Administration, under the leadership of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, the Service changed its approach. Secretary 

MacDonald demanded that Service employees demonstrate that their actions, such 

as designating critical habitat, be supported by adequate data. In particular, Secretary MacDonald was skeptical of the designation of ‘‘unoccupied’’ critical habitat. 

But in the wake of a critical inspector general report 5 and a change in administration, the Service resumed its prior, more relaxed, and legally deficient approach. 

The case of the Western snowy plover nicely exemplifies this retrenchment. 

The plover is a shore bird, listed in 1993, whose habitat extends from Central 

California up to the Canadian border. 58 Fed. Reg. 12,864 (Mar. 5, 1993). The Service originally designated critical habitat for the bird in 1999, but that designation 

was successfully challenged in 2003 for the Service’s failure to conduct an adequate 

economic impact assessment. See id. at 36,729–30. In 2005, the Service published 

a revised, less expansive, critical habitat designation. 70 Fed. Reg. 56,970 (Sept. 29, 

2005). In 2008, the Center for Biological Diversity sued the Service, contending that 

many areas were improperly excluded from the designation. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne, No. 3:08–cv–4594–PJH (N.D. Cal. filed Oct. 2, 2008). Pacific 

Legal Foundation attorneys intervened in the lawsuit on behalf of landowners and 

off-road vehicle enthusiasts whose property and dune-buggy grounds the Center 

wanted included in critical habitat. Sadly, rather than defend the designation, the 

Fish and Wildlife Service chose to settle. See Notice of Filing Settlement Agreement, 

Doc. No. 55 (filed May 11, 2009). The Foundation’s clients were given no opportunity 

to participate in these settlement discussions. In 2012, the Service issued a new critical habitat designation that nearly doubled the size of the 2005 designation, see 77 

Fed. Reg. 36,728 (June 19, 2012), and included our clients’ formerly excluded properties, see id. 36,742. 

The United States Chamber of Commerce has recently reported on similar sueand-settle critical habitat cases.6 In 2007, the Fish and Wildlife Service issued critical habitat for the Hine’s emerald dragonfly. See 72 Fed. Reg. 51,102 (Sept. 5, 

2007). Environmental groups then sued, claiming that the Service wrongfully excluded about 13,000 acres of habitat in two (already protected) national forests in 

Michigan and Missouri. See Northwoods Wilderness Recovery v. Kempthorne, No. 

08–01407 (N.D. Ill.). The Administration changed and, not surprisingly, the environmental groups and the Service settled, with the agency agreeing to reanalyze the 

designation. Then, the Service issued a new designation more than double the size 

of the previous designation. See 75 Fed. Reg. 21,394 (Apr. 23, 2010). 

Similarly, WildEarth Guardians, an environmentalist organization, sued the Service in 2008 over the agency’s failure to designate critical habitat for the Chiricahua 

leopard frog. WildEarth Guardians v. Kempthorne, 08–cv–00689–NVW (D. Ariz. 

filed Apr. 9, 2008). The Service listed the frog in 2002, but determined at that time 

that critical habitat designation would not be prudent. See 67 Fed. Reg. 40,790 

(June 13, 2002). WildEarth Guardians’ suit sought to overturn the Service’s determination, and after substantive briefing had commenced (as well as a change in Administration), the Service decided to settle the case. See Doc. No. 32. In the settlement, the Service agreed to revisit its determination, and ultimately the Service 

designated over 10,000 acres of critical habitat. See 77 Fed. Reg. 16,324 (Mar. 20, 

2012). 

The Service at Time 1 produces a reasonable designation that deserves a vigorous 

defense in court. Yet, at Time 2, once the administration has become ‘‘greener’’ and 

environmental groups sue, the Service gives up. Where is the transparency? 

11

7See, e.g., http://www.hatcheryreform.us/hrp/summary/welcome_show.action (last visited July 

25, 2013) (Congressionally established Hatchery Scientific Review Group noting that ‘‘hatcheries 

play an important rolein the management of salmon and steelhead populations in the Pacific 

Northwest’’). 

IV. The salmon wars: counting all the fish

For over two decades, a near-incessant conflict has raged in the Pacific Northwest 

between the environmental community, on the one hand, and water users and others who rely on the benefits to the human community that various hydroelectric and 

reclamation projects provide, on the other hand. The environmental community contends that these projects harm various populations of protected salmonids—in ESA 

parlance, ‘‘evolutionarily significant units’’ of salmon and steelhead. See 56 Fed. Reg. 

58,612 (Nov. 20, 1991). Generally speaking, the federal courts have endorsed the environmentalists’ views. See, e.g., Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv.,

481 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir. 2007) (overturning the management plan for the Federal 

Columbia River Power System because it was insufficiently protective of ESA-listed 

salmonid populations). But on one crucial point, which I discuss below, the courts 

originally sided with property owners and their allies. Yet the National Marine 

Fisheries Service has succeeded in taking a less-than-transparent path to avoid even 

this one judicial limitation on its policy preferences. 

The issue concerns how the Service defines what constitutes an evolutionarily significant unit. Until the early 2000s, the Service followed a Hatchery Listing Policy 

whereby it entirely ignored the existence of hatchery-raised salmon when determining whether a given population of salmon merited listing. See 58 Fed. Reg. 

17,573 (Apr. 5, 1993). This was a crucial move on the Service’s part, because by refusing to count these hatchery-raised individuals, the Service was able to give the 

(false) impression that the salmon population at issue was closer to extinction than 

actually was the case. 

To right this wrong, Pacific Legal Foundation attorneys filed suit on behalf of 

property owners and their allies in federal court in Oregon, challenging the Service’s 

policy of not counting all the fish. The district court ultimately agreed with the 

Foundation’s position, ruling that it was arbitrary and capricious for the Service to 

acknowledge that (1) hatchery-raised fish are genetically indistinguishable from naturally spawning fish, and (2) offspring of hatchery fish are deemed naturally spawning, but (3) hatchery-raised fish must be excluded by definition from the population 

unit proposed for listing. See Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1154 

(D. Or. 2001). The court therefore ordered the Service to redo its policy. 

But the Service, rather than agreeing to faithfully implement the court’s order, 

opted for an end-run. The agency’s strategy succeeded in two ways. 

First, it issued a new Hatchery Listing Policy (ultimately upheld by the Ninth 

Circuit on principles of judicial deference to agency decision making, see Trout Unlimited v. Lohn, 559 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2009)) under which hatchery-raised fish are 

considered part of the protected population, but their presence is deemed a negative 

impact on the naturally-raised component, therefore making it more likely that the 

population as a whole will be listed. See 70 Fed. Reg. 37,204. An admittedly clever 

approach: not only does the revised policy undercut the Alsea decision, it potentially 

makes things worse for the regulated public. Before Alsea, hatchery-raised fish were 

not regulated under the Act. Now, such fish are included within the protected population, yet, per the policy, cannot help the population as a whole to recover. 

Second, the Service has begun to use a rationale for listing salmonid species that 

is different from the evolutionarily significant unit rationale but better serves the 

agency’s preferred policy ends. Specifically, the Service has begun to use its Distinct 

Population Segment Policy, see 61 Fed. Reg. 4,722 (Feb. 7, 1996), to list salmonid 

populations that otherwise would be subject to its evolutionarily significant unit policy, see Modesto Irrig. Dist. v. Gutierrez, 619 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2010). The reason 

for the Service’s shift is that the Distinct Population Segment Policy allows the 

Service to divide populations based on behavior rather than ‘‘reproductive isolation.’’ 

Although hatchery-raised fish are genetically indistinguishable from their wildspawning cousins, they can exhibit behavioral differences. Thus, using the distinct 

population segment rationale also allows the agency to effect a perfect end-run 

around Alsea.

Hatcheries have been used to sustain salmonid populations in the Pacific Northwest for over a century.7 Indeed, without such hatcheries, many runs of salmon 

might be far worse than they are today (or even extinct). Does it serve transparency 

to first ignore this fact and then systematically to characterize it as a bad thing? 

12

V. Convenient taxonomy

The Act does not authorize the Services to list any population they wish. Rather, 

the Act carefully circumscribes the Services’ authority to list only species, subspecies, and distinct population segments of species. See 16 U.S.C. § 1532(16). Nevertheless, recent history reveals the Services’ desire to use less-than-transparent 

processes to ensure that they can find a listable unit. I give two examples below. 

A. California gnatcatcher 

The California gnatcatcher is a small songbird that ranges from Mexico to southern California. The gnatcatcher species as a whole is not endangered with extinction, but in 1993 the Service decided to list as threatened the California segment 

of the gnatcatcher as a separate subspecies. See 58 Fed. Reg. 16,742 (Mar. 30, 1993). 

The Service justified its determination largely on the work of one scientist, Jonathan Atwood. See id. at 16,742. Since then, several published studies have concluded 

that the Atwood subspecies classification is invalid. In fact, Atwood was a co-author 

of a subsequent study that substantially undercut his earlier work. Accordingly, in 

2010, Pacific Legal Foundation attorneys, representing various interested industry 

and property rights groups, petitioned the Service to delist the gnatcatcher. Remarkably, the Service rejected the petition, reasoning that, although the new 

science undercut the old science, the agency was not prepared to move forward with 

delisting until more science was done. See 76 Fed. Reg. 66,255, 66,259 (Oct. 26, 

2011). 

B. Orca whale 

Similarly fishy is the National Marine Fisheries Service’s listing of the Puget 

Sound population of orca whale. The Service listed the population in 2005 as the 

result of an environmentalist lawsuit. See 70 Fed. Reg. 69,903 (Nov. 18, 2005). At 

the time, the Service acknowledged that the worldwide species of orca is not in danger of extinction, and that the Puget Sound population of orca whale does not qualify as a distinct population segment of the species as a whole. See id. at 69,903. So, 

what did the Service elect to do? Invent a new subspecies of orca whale, and list 

the Puget Sound orcas as a distinct population segment of that never-before-andnever-since-recognized subspecies of whale. See id. at 69,907. When protections for 

this whale population were used as part of the justification for imposing draconian 

water cutbacks to farms and towns in California’s San Joaquin Valley, Pacific Legal 

Foundation attorneys submitted a delisting petition on behalf of affected farmers. 

The petition argued that new science has definitively established that the unnamed 

subspecies of orca whale is bogus, and that the listing is illegal. The Service is currently reviewing the petition. See 77 Fed. Reg. 70,733 (Nov. 27, 2012). 

These examples of the gnatcatcher and orca whale support the conclusion that the 

Services view taxonomy as just one obstacle, or convenient excuse, relating to the 

ultimate goal of listing species, whether endangered or not. Where is the transparency? 

VI. Economic impact analysis

The Act does not allow the Services to take into account economic impacts when 

determining whether to list a species. Cf. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(a)(1). However, the Act 

requires such considerations to be taken into account when designating critical habitat. See id. § 1533(b)(2). Nevertheless, the Services have tried to minimize their responsibility to assess critical habitat’s economic impact by using a so-called ‘‘baseline’’ approach. According to this baseline theory, the agencies must estimate what 

the world would look like without the designation, and compare it to what the world 

would look like with the designation. This interpretation appears at first blush to 

be reasonable, but in reality it makes a mockery of the economic impact analysis. 

The reason why derives from the Services’ position that many of the economic impacts attributable to critical habitat designation are also attributable to a species’ 

listing. But, because the Services are not allowed to take into account economic impacts when considering whether to list a species, the Services assert that they must 

ignore these impacts for all purposes, including for critical habitat designation. 

Hence, the Services produce economic impact analyses concluding that there are 

no or very few negative economic impacts from critical habitat designation, which 

is of course demonstrably false. As one prominent economist has explained, 

‘‘[d]esignation of critical habitat can impose significant costs by raising the cost of 

development, reducing the amount of usable land and delaying completion of 

13

8David Sunding, The Economic Impacts of Critical Habitat Designation, 6 Agricultural & Resource Economics Update 7 (July/Aug. 2003), available at http://giannini.ucop.edu/are-update/6/

6/the-economic-impacts-of-c/ (last visited July 25, 2013). 9 Id. at 10. 

projects.’’ 8 Moreover, he notes that the Service’s baseline approach has serious 

flaws, because it ignores regional market impacts, as well as impacts to consumers, 

not just developers and landowners.9

A much more reasonable approach—known as the ‘‘coextensive’’ theory—would 

take account of all impacts from designation, even if those impacts are ‘‘coextensive’’ 

with listing impacts. The Service’s baseline position has been adopted by one circuit 

court of appeals, Az. Cattle Growers Ass’n v. Salazar, 606 F.3d 1160, 1173 (9th Cir. 

2010), but rejected in favor of the coextensive approach by another, see N.M. 

Cattlegrowers Ass’n v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 248 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2001). 

The Service has now pending a proposal to make the baseline approach part of the 

agencies’ regulations. See 77 Fed. Reg. 51,503, 51,506–07 (Aug. 24, 2012). 

How is transparency served when the agencies convert their obligation to assess 

the economic impacts of critical habitat designation into a paper exercise? 

VII. Amending a forest plan through settlement

Conservation Northwest v. Sherman, 715 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2013), is the latest 

in a long tradition of litigation over the Northwest Forest Plan, which governs logging and other activities for over 24 million acres of federal land between San Francisco and the Canadian border. In 2007, environmental groups challenged, under a 

variety of laws including the Endangered Species Act, the Bureau of Land Management’s and Forest Service’s decision, approved by the Fish and Wildlife Service, to 

excise the ‘‘Survey and Manage’’ Standard from the Plan. This Standard, which the 

agencies found difficult to administer, required them to take a close look at the impacts of logging on some 400 species of concern. Id. at 1184. The D.R. Johnson Lumber Co. intervened to defend the agencies’ abandonment of the Standard. The environmental groups, however, prevailed in the district court on their claims under the 

National Environmental Policy Act, and then proceeded to negotiate a settlement 

with the agencies. The settlement ultimately approved, over the lumber company’s 

objections, effectively amended the Plan by imposing new management standards 

for various species. 

Happily, the lumber company successfully appealed the settlement’s approval to 

the Ninth Circuit, which held that the district court abused its discretion in okaying 

the settlement. The appellate court reasoned that, although judicial decrees normally are not subject to notice and comment, this agreement was illegal because it 

imposed new, substantive, changes to the existing Plan, and because these changes 

were potentially of indefinite duration. See id. at 1187–88. 

Nevertheless, had it not been for judicial correction, the agencies would have managed, through ‘‘sue and settle’’ tactics, to amend their regulations without adhering 

to the required notice-and-comment procedures. Where was the transparency? 

VIII. Conclusion

Reasonable people can disagree about the utility and morality of the Endangered 

Species Act, but no one can legitimately approve of a less-than-transparent administration of the Act. Unfortunately, over the last several decades, the United States 

Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service have implemented 

the Act in a way that puts agency policy ahead of the law and the best interests 

of the regulated public. Moreover, the agencies’ administration of the Act oftentimes 

bears no relationship to the best interests of protected species, but serves only to 

aggrandize government power or satisfy particularly litigious environmental groups. 

The last five years have simply exacerbated these odious practices. Groups like Pacific Legal Foundation can help prevent individual injustices, but systematic improvement to the Act and its administration is this Committee’s and Congress’ prerogative and duty. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, may I ask unanimous consent before our wonderful next witness, Mr. Ashe, to ask unanimous consent to submit testimony from Susan Combs, the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, for this hearing? 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will be part of the hearing. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you so much. 

14

1Les Blumenthal, ‘‘After 20 Years of Protection, Owl Declining but Forests Remain.’’ 

McClatchy Newspapers (Sept. 5, 2010). 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix 

occidentalis caurina) (Portland, Oregon, June 28, 2011), pp. III–42. 3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spoiled Owl (Strix 

occidentalis caurina), pp. III–59. 4 Center for Biological Diversity, 404 Southeastern Freshwater Fish, Mussels, Crayfish, Birds, 

and Others Petitioned for Protection as Endangered Species, ‘‘April 10, 2010. http://

www.biologicaldiversitv.org/news/press_releases/2010/southeast_petition-04-20-2010.html (Last 

visited July 29, 2013). 5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ‘‘Improving ESA Implementation,’’ http://www.fws.gov/endangered/improving_esa/listing_workplan.html (Last visited July 29, 2013). 

[The information submitted for the record by Mr. Gohmert follows:]

Statement of Susan Combs, Texas Comptroller of

Public Accounts, Austin Texas 

First, let me say I very much appreciate the Committee holding this important 

hearing to look at how settlement agreements have circumvented transparency and 

the use of scientific data in decisions made under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA). I would also like to thank Congressman Gohmert (TX–1) for submitting my 

testimony for the record. 

The ESA is of concern to Texas because a species listing can have a significant 

effect on the state’s economy by limiting business activity and the use of private 

property. Texas’ economy is strong and, by most economic indicators, is outperforming the rest of the nation. This can be attributed in part to the state’s emphasis 

on preserving private property rights and creating a regulatory environment in 

which industry can thrive. 

As the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, I am the state’s chief financial officer and responsible for monitoring and reporting on issues that can affect the economic well-being of Texas such as Federal regulatory matters, including the ESA, 

which can impact the state’s economy. 

I have been involved with the ESA for many years. My involvement began as a 

private landowner/rancher in West Texas. It continued as I was elected to serve first 

as a state representative and later as the Texas Agriculture Commissioner. Most recently, as Comptroller, I currently serve as the presiding officer of the Interagency 

Task Force on Economic Growth and Endangered Species which was created by the 

Texas Legislature in 2009. Additionally, in 2011, the Texas Legislature provided authority to the Comptroller to coordinate and develop conservation plans and hold 

corresponding Federal permits issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 

Because of my experience, I recognize the importance of using sound scientific evidence when making a decision to list a species given the consequences of such actions. An example everyone is familiar with is the Northern Spotted owl. The FWS 

believed the owl needed protection under the ESA primarily due to logging operations. This action devastated local economies. Since the listing of this species, logging in the region’s national forests has dropped from 4 billion board feet per year 

to about half a billion board feet per year; as many as 200 mills have closed.1 Twenty years after the owl was listed as threatened, the owl population continues to fall 

by an average of about 3 percent annually.2 Recent evidence now indicates the primary threat to the owl comes from a bigger and tougher rival, the barred owl.3

Using reliable data is especially important considering the flood of species petitions being received by FWS. From 1994 to 2006 the agency received petitions to 

list an average of 20 species annually. Since 2007, however, FWS has been petitioned to list 1,250 species. This sharp increase is the result of ‘‘mega-petitions’’ calling for the protection of dozens or even hundreds of species at a time—one petition 

filed in 2010 included 404 species.4

As a direct result of the use of mega-petitions, FWS has been subject to many 

lawsuits by environmental groups. In 2011, two environmental groups settled multidistrict litigation with FWS that centered on the agency’s failure to meet deadlines 

prescribed by the ESA.5 This is commonly referred to as ‘‘sue and settle.’’

According to analysis conducted by my office, about 1,000 species included in the 

2011 settlement will be subject to some action under the ESA, including 250 that 

must be reviewed for final listing as threatened or endangered by 2016. However, 

the number of species subject to review under the ESA in Texas continues to grow. 

15

6 Comptroller of Public Accounts, Keeping Texas First, http://texasahead.org/texasfirst/species/

watch.php (Last visited July 29, 2013). 7 Center for Biological Diversity, 60-day notice of intent to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, June 18, 2012, http://fws.gov/southeast/candidateconservation/pdf/

IntenttoSue_10FLSpecies.pdf (Last visited July 29, 2013). 8 76 Fed. Reg. 59836–59862 (Sept. 27, 2011). 

9 Center for Biological Diversity, ‘‘New Agreement Moves Rare Orchid, Marten, Turtle, Marsh 

Bird Closer to Endangered Species Act Protection,’’ http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/

press_releases/2013/10-species-04-26-2013.html (Last visited July 29, 2013). 10Texas A&M Institute of Renewable Natural Resources, ‘‘Recovery Credit System Proof of 

Concept,’’ http://rcs.tamu.edu/proof-of-concept/ (Last visited July 29, 2013). 

To date, we are monitoring 125 species in Texas.6 It is interesting to note that more 

than half of these species resulted from the settlement agreement. 

Despite the 2011 settlement, the environmental groups who agreed to it continue 

to sue or threaten to sue over many actions, including several already addressed in 

the settlement. For example, on June 18, 2012, the Center for Biological Diversity 

(CBD) filed a notice of intent to sue FWS for failure to make 12-month findings for 

several species in the workplan.7 FWS did make 90-day findings on these species 

on Sept. 26, 2011, as required in the workplan.8 In April 2013, CBD announced another settlement with FWS regarding a timeline for decisions on several of these 

and other species across the country.9

The use of mega-petitions and sue and settle tactics is very concerning. The current process gives plaintiffs undue advantages over the Federal government and affected stakeholders including state and local governments, communities, businesses 

and private property owners. The 2011 settlement, for instance, was a closed-door 

arrangement between FWS and the two environmental groups. Those directly affected by the settlement were not consulted or included in the negotiations. 

To ensure fairness and bring balance to the ESA it is important that any ESA 

decisions or settlement agreements be transparent and inclusive. The public should 

have access to information and be aware of settlement negotiations while they are 

occurring. Additionally, stakeholders must always be included in settlement negotiations since these decisions can have a significant impact. 

Most important, however, is ensuring credible and complete scientific evidence 

and data is used in ESA decisions. I have long been an advocate for science not litigation driving listing decisions. Introducing better research into the process and ensuring a high scientific standard can be accomplished without ESA reform. The ESA 

standard of ‘‘best scientific and commercial data available’’ should equate to sound, 

verifiable scientific data. 

In that vein, Texas is pioneering an initiative to provide credible and complete 

data on species that may be subject to ESA listing. The purpose of this initiative 

is to identify, prioritize and bridge gaps in species research and ensure pertinent 

listing decisions are based on accurate not erroneous data. During the 83rd Texas 

Legislative Session, $5 million was appropriated to my office to conduct species research. Working with FWS, state universities and other non-governmental organizations, we will develop high quality research on priority species to be used by FWS 

in its ESA listing decisions. We will use a process that includes strong internal controls including independent audits and ongoing research verification. It is my understanding that no other state has a comparable program. It is my hope this effort 

establishes a new standard for high-quality species research and creates better state 

and Federal partnerships regarding research needs in ESA listing decisions that ultimately helps protect the state’s economy. 

This is not the first time Texas has led the way. Examples of the state’s innovation in working with the ESA began with Fort Hood. As agriculture commissioner, 

I worked with the military, private landowners and other state and Federal stakeholders to uphold the military mission at Fort Hood despite ESA regulations required for the endangered golden-cheeked warbler (GCW). This effort resulted in the 

development of the Recovery Credit System (RCS), a ground breaking pilot program 

to provide incentives to private landowners near Fort Hood to conduct conservation 

practices to benefit the GCWs.10 The credits generated by participating landowners 

were used to offset disturbances of GCW habitat located on the military base. This 

increased the United States Army’s training capacity and sustained Fort Hood’s 

ability to enhance national security. Fort Hood remains an important part of the 

local and the state economy. 

Continuing the drive to create innovative solutions in response to ESA actions, 

the Texas Conservation Plan (TCP) for the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard (DSL) was developed and includes many of the successful features of the RCS. As Comptroller, 

I hold the Federal enhancement of survival permit for this landmark conservation 

agreement, which was developed by public and private stakeholders and ultimately 

16

11 U.S. Department of the Interior, ‘‘Landmark Conservation Agreements Keep Dunes Sagebrush Lizard off the Endangered Species List in NM, TX,’’ June 13, 2012, http://www.fws.gov/

southwest/es/Documents/R2ES/NR_for_DSL_Final_Determination_13June2012.pdf (Last visited 

July 29,2013). 

was used by FWS not to list the DSL as endangered.11 This plan provides conservation for the DSL and valuable scientific research that will continue to better inform 

any future ESA decisions for the DSL. The TCP also provides a safety net for the 

oil and gas and agriculture industries enabling them to continue their operations 

without permanent mitigation. This is achieved through private landowner conservation activities that can be used to offset any disturbances in DSL habitat, similar to the RCS. 

In closing, I am hopeful that through highlighting the areas in the ESA that are 

problematic, and insisting on the use of complete and accurate science, an improved 

and sound public policy can be created to balance the needs of all parties impacted 

by the ESA. 

My office continues to monitor ESA activities and has developed a dedicated, comprehensive website, www.KeepingTexasFirst.org, to track such Federal regulatory 

actions. I encourage you to visit this site and learn more about what Texas is doing. 

Should the Committee have any questions regarding the efforts Texas has underway regarding the ESA, please do not hesitate to contact me or my office. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now we will welcome Director Dan Ashe of the 

U.S. Fish Wildlife and Service here in Washington, D.C. Director 

Ashe, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DAN ASHE, DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND 

WILDLIFE SERVICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. ASHE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is always an honor to 

appear before this Committee. 

As I testified in December 2011, the Service is an equal opportunity litigation target. While at times this makes it challenging to 

meet our statutory deadlines and balance our workload, I want to 

re-emphasize that litigation is far from our principal challenge in 

effectively implementing the Endangered Species Act. In fact, 

today, our listing program stands on its strongest footing ever, 

largely because of the multi-district litigation settlement that I 

think we will hear much discussion of today. 

We have heard allegations, speculation, and rhetoric about socalled sue-and-settle strategy. What we haven’t seen is supporting 

evidence. One aspect is true, Mr. Chairman. The settlement was 

our idea, and we pursued it aggressively. But an accurate characterization of it would be get out of court and get to work. 

Like it or not, Congress placed specific deadlines in the Endangered Species Act. When the Service is sued for missing deadlines, 

we have no defense. And common sense dictates that we settle, 

rather than waste taxpayer dollars in a losing battle. Through 

years of case-by-case settlements—case-by-case settlements—based 

simply on the order in which lawsuits were filed, we gradually lost 

control of our workload. So we decided to take control. Rather than 

allowing seven district courts to determine our work schedule, we 

successfully consolidated that litigation before a single court, reaching a comprehensive and favorable settlement. 

Yes, the settlement discussions were held only with plaintiffs, as 

they always are. But there is nothing secret about it. The settlement agreement was subject to court approval in a public setting, 

and was widely announced to the public and our partners. We fully 

briefed Congress and have freely shared our work plan and its 

17

deadlines with the public and our partners. I can tell you, Mr. 

Chairman, unequivocally, there was no collusion or pre-meditation 

between the Service and the plaintiffs. There is no evidence to support that claim. In fact, these were contentious negotiations. But, 

in the end, we all agreed that this comprehensive settlement is a 

win for good government, sensible implementation of the law, and 

species conservation. 

The settlement commits the Service to follow nothing more than 

a schedule in making listing determinations that are required by 

the law. In return, the plaintiffs agreed to substantially limit their 

listing-related litigation. The settlement schedule provides unprecedented predictability and transparency for stakeholders. Rather 

than uncertainty regarding whether or when the Service might propose to list a given species, stakeholders now know, in some cases 

years in advance. 

Each of these species proposals will follow the full process and 

standards of the law. They will be subject to scientific peer review, 

as well as public review and comment, before we make a final determination. All our decisions are subject, ultimately, to judicial review. This process is the essence of transparency, and ensures the 

use of the best available scientific and commercial information, as 

we make these important decisions. 

Perhaps most important, this schedule provides unprecedented 

opportunity to proactively conserve species before we need to make 

a listing determination. Certainly the Service will be reviewing the 

status of a candidate—the fact that the Service will be reviewing 

a status of a candidate species is incentivizing voluntary and creative efforts to address extinction threats before a listing determination is made. We saw this happen with the due sage brush lizard in New Mexico and Texas. We are seeing it now across the 11-

State range of the greater sage-grouse. 

The MDL deadline of September 30, 2015 is spurring a historic 

conservation effort on the part of the Service, the Bureau of Land 

Management, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the U.S. 

Forest Service, the 11 States, industry, and private land owners. 

Even if listing is still warranted for the sage-grouse and other species, these measures can be rolled into candidate conservation 

agreements, habitat conservation plans, and special rules under 

Section 4(d) of the law, providing certainty for land owners and 

businesses. 

Frankly, this agreement is ensuring that the listing process 

works as Congress intended it to work. Critics seem to want to 

have it both ways, painting the ESA as a failure because of litigation, but insinuating that we have done something wrong when we 

use the judicial process strategically to get out of court and get to 

work conserving species. We all have an interest in sustaining our 

Nation’s biological diversity. This settlement is a big step forward. 

It is good government brought to you by very talented and dedicated public servants, and I am proud of this effort and I am happy 

to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ashe follows:]

18

Statement of Dan Ashe, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. 

Department of the Interior

Good morning Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member DeFazio and Members of the 

Committee. I am Dan Ashe, Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

at the Department of the Interior (Interior). 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the Service’s administration of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), especially our experience with litigation 

and settlement agreements. 

In the forty years since it was passed, the ESA has prevented the extinction of 

hundreds of species and promoted the recovery of many others, including gray 

wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains and the Western Great Lakes, Aleutian 

Canada geese, and the Tennessee coneflower. This great conservation work has 

helped to achieve Congress’s call to preserve the nation’s natural resource heritage, 

and it has happened alongside robust and sustained economic development. 

But, as witnesses at your last ESA hearing testified, increasing numbers of species are facing the threat of extinction. The petition process, deadlines, and citizen 

suit provisions of the ESA provide appropriate opportunity for parties to challenge 

the pace and priorities of the Service in administering our listing duties. This contributes to a seemingly unlimited workload with limited resources sometimes resulting in missed statutory deadlines for which we are often sued. Settlement agreements are often in the public’s best interest because we have no effective legal defense to most deadline cases, and because settlement agreements facilitate issue resolution as a more expeditious and less costly alternative to litigation. 

When we settle a deadline case, we agree on a schedule for taking an action that 

is already required by the ESA. We do not give away our discretion to decide the 

substantive outcome of those actions, and the notice and comment and other public 

participation provisions of the ESA and the Administrative Procedure Act still 

apply. 

ESA Litigation History

As I testified in December 2011, the Service is an equal opportunity litigation target, challenged frequently by industry, environmental organizations, states, tribes, 

and individual citizens. ESA-related litigation, particularly regarding our responsibilities for reviewing petitions to list, making listing determinations, and designating critical habitat, is not a recent occurrence; such litigation has been a fact of 

life for the Service for nearly twenty-five years. Most of that litigation has challenged the pace and priorities of the Service in addressing a backlog of listing actions. 

The Service has faced a listing backlog from virtually the beginning of our implementation of the ESA. The 1973 Act directed the Smithsonian Institution to identify 

species of plants that might warrant listing, and their subsequent Report identified 

more than 3,000 at-risk plants. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Service spent 

considerable time and resources working through that initial backlog. 

Amendments to the ESA enacted in 1978 required the Service to also designate 

critical habitat concurrent with listing. The slow pace of listing determinations at 

the beginning of the Reagan Administration led the Congress to amend the ESA 

again, and in the 1982 amendments to establish strict deadlines for making petition 

findings and shorten the time allowed between proposed and final rules from two 

years to one. And tight deadlines are appropriate, because for species facing the 

threat of extinction, time is the most critical ingredient in success. 

By the early 1990s, the Service had determined that hundreds of species warranted consideration of listing and the protections of the ESA. Taking that action 

on these ‘‘candidates’’ for listing was precluded due to limitations on available Service resources and the need to act on higher priority ESA actions. 

Based on the number of species on the candidate list, and a perception that the 

Service was not making progress on listing these species, in 1993 the Fund for Animals sued the Service for its failure to make expeditious progress in carrying out 

its listing duties. The Service settled this litigation at the end of the George H.W. 

Bush Administration, agreeing to make listing determinations for the 401 species 

then on the candidate list by September 30, 1996. While the Service concluded that 

the listing of some of these candidate species was not warranted, listing was warranted for many others. As a result, the Service listed more species from 1991 to 

1995 than in the previous 17 years since the ESA’s inception. 

At that time, in an effort to align work effort and limited resources with the highest conservation priorities, the Service concluded that it was not prudent to designate critical habitat for many of those newly listed species. That led to more litigaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:53 Jan 16, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Y:\00FULL~1\00AU01\8-1-13~1\82446.TXT MARK
19

tion challenging the failure to designate critical habitat, and the courts ultimately 

made it clear that our discretion not to designate critical habitat was very limited. 

By late 2000, the Service was subject to so many court orders to designate critical 

habitat that it was unable to carry out any other listing activity. In order to restore 

some balance to the Service’s listing activities, early in the George W. Bush Administration the Service and environmental plaintiffs entered into another comprehensive settlement agreement, called the ‘‘Mini-Global Settlement.’’ The Service agreed 

to act on a list of petition findings, proposed rules, and emergency listing decisions. 

In return, the plaintiffs agreed to work with the Government to obtain modifications 

to court orders and settlement agreements in three cases to extend deadlines for 

critical habitat designations and dismiss a fourth case. 

By the late 2000s, the Service was facing a new wave of deadline litigation—this 

time focused on petition deadlines. 

Between 1994 and 2006, the Service received, on average, 17 petitions covering 

20 species per year. In contrast, between 2007 and 2010, the Service was petitioned 

to list over 1,000 species—more species than the Service has listed during the previous 30 years of administering the ESA. Three ‘‘mega-petitions’’ overwhelmed the 

listing capacity of the Service and led to missed deadlines for petition findings for 

many species. During 2009 and 2010, the Service faced more than 20 lawsuits in 

numerous district courts challenging missed deadlines for more than 100 species. 

The Department of Justice asked the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to 

transfer 20 petition deadline cases from seven district courts and assign them to the 

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. After the Panel agreed to do so, 

the District Court consolidated all of the cases, and referred the consolidated case 

to the court’s mediation process, and that mediation ultimately led to the 2011 

Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) settlement agreements. 

Settlement Agreement Benefits of the Multidistrict Litigation

The MDL settlements have accomplished our objectives of making our listing activities more certain and predictable, and allowing the Service to focus more of our 

limited resources on actions that provide the most conservation benefit to the species that are most in need of help. The MDL settlement committed the Service to 

make the listing determinations required by the ESA for 251 species on a workable 

and publicly available schedule. The settlements did not commit the Service to add 

these species to the list; rather, they committed the Service to make a determination 

by a date certain as to whether listing was still warranted and, if so, to publish a 

proposed rule to initiate the rulemaking process of adding a species to the list. 

The MDL settlement agreement has served to reduce deadline litigation. Through 

the agreement, the plaintiffs have agreed to substantially limit or eliminate their 

deadline litigation. Again, this allows the Service to use our objective, biologicallybased priority system to establish our work priorities, rather than have our priorities overridden by litigation seeking to advance plaintiffs’ priorities. 

Between 2008 and 2010, the Service was also engaged in litigation for missed 

deadlines on petition findings for approximately 895 species. Since the MDL agreements were approved and the Service made its workplan public, the Service has 

seen an almost 96 percent reduction in species subject to lawsuits filed for missed 

deadlines on petition findings. 

To that end, last year a federal judge cited the MDL settlements as the sole basis 

for finding that the Service is making expeditious progress in upholding an FY 2015 

date for a listing determination for greater sage-grouse. Rather than force the Service to make a listing decision on a far more aggressive schedule sought by the plaintiff, this ruling in support of the MDL settlements is providing time for the Service 

and our partners to develop and implement conservation measures that work best 

for the species and local communities. 

The MDL provides predictability for stakeholders and local communities. Prior to 

the settlement agreements, stakeholders were in limbo while species were on the 

candidate list, unsure when the Service might pursue a listing determination on a 

candidate species. The settlements have allowed the Service to establish and make 

available to the public a multi-year schedule for listing determinations on our candidate species. Stakeholders know in advance, in some cases years in advance, when 

we will be reviewing these candidates to determine whether a listing proposal is 

still warranted. 

The MDL settlements have also served to encourage proactive conservation efforts 

by landowners, industry groups, local communities, and government agencies. For 

example, planning and implementation of conservation efforts is happening right 

now for the greater sage-grouse, a candidate species for which the Service has committed to make a listing determination by September 30, 2015. Sometimes proactive 

conservation efforts can make an ESA listing no longer necessary, as was the case 

20

with the dunes sagebrush lizard in Texas and New Mexico. With more certainty and 

predictability about when the Service will make listing decisions, Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances (CCAAs) can also be developed and permitted to provide regulatory assurances to participating landowners in the event 

that listing is still warranted. Conservation efforts developed by stakeholders may 

also be rolled into Habitat Conservation Plans that provide predictability and ESA 

compliance for landowners, industry groups, or local communities. A clear example 

of the compatibility of working landscapes and species conservation can be found in 

the Sentinel Landscapes partnership, a federal, local and private collaboration designed to preserve agricultural lands, assistant military readiness and restore and 

protect wildlife habitat. Through this initiative, the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), Interior and the Department of Defense (DoD) will work together in overlapping priority areas near military installations to help farmers and ranchers make 

improvements to the land that benefit their operation, enhance wildlife habitat, and 

enable DoD’s training missions to continue. 

Improving Implementation of the ESA

The title of today’s hearing insinuates that settlement agreements have somehow 

reduced the transparency and scientific integrity of the listing decisions the Service 

makes under the ESA. We strongly reject that notion. Any deadline settlement we 

enter into commits us only to undertake a process already required by the ESA by 

a date certain. We do not commit to a substantive outcome of any decision or give 

away any of our authority, responsibility, or discretion in making a decision. Our 

listing decisions are based upon the best available scientific information, and proposals to add a species to the list or to designate critical habitat are subject to independent scientific peer review and public notice and comment. 

The ESA is a tool by which we conserve our nation’s biological diversity. Like any 

tool, it can be improved, and we are working hard to make those improvements to 

increase transparency, predictability and certainty. And like any tradesman, we are 

occasionally imperfect in our use of this tool. However, we are committed to continually improving the ESA’s implementation in close collaboration with our partners, 

and I believe we have an exceptional history of doing just that. In addition to the 

multi-year workplan for the Listing Program, the Service and the Department of 

Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are working 

to improve implementation of the ESA by considering appropriate changes to our 

practices, guidance, policies, and regulations to enhance conservation of listed species. Our priority is to make implementation of the ESA simpler, less contentious, 

and more effective by ensuring that key operational aspects of the ESA are current, 

transparent, and results oriented. 

To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the ESA in conserving endangered 

and threatened species, the Service and NOAA are moving toward improving the 

implementation of the ESA to reduce burdens, redundancy, and conflict, and at the 

same time promote predictability, certainty, and innovation. This effort has been 

guided by the following objectives, which conform with the principles espoused in 

President Obama’s Executive Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review’’ and the Service’s vision for the Endangered and Threatened Species Program: 

• Improving the effectiveness of the ESA to conserve imperiled species; 

• Making administrative procedures as efficient as possible; 

• Improving the clarity and consistency of our regulations through, among 

other things, the use of plain language and by providing more precise definitions of many of our key terms; 

• Encouraging more effective conservation partnerships with other Federal 

agencies, the States, Tribes, conservation organizations, and private landowners; 

• Encouraging innovation and cooperation in the implementation of the ESA; 

and 

• Reducing the frequency and intensity of conflicts when possible. 

The Service and NOAA Fisheries seek to be open and transparent in our efforts 

to improve ESA implementation through ESA regulatory reform and meet the goals 

of promoting public participation, promoting innovation, increasing flexibility where 

possible, ensuring scientific integrity, and continuing our analysis of existing rules 

as set forth in Executive Order 13563. 

Conclusion

In closing, Mr. Chairman, America’s fish, wildlife, and plant resources belong to 

us all, and ensuring the health of imperiled species is a shared responsibility. We 

are working to actively engage conservation partners and the public in the search 

21

for improved and innovative ways to conserve and recover imperiled species. I would 

like to emphasize the importance the Service places upon having a science-driven, 

transparent decision-making process in which the affected public can meaningfully 

participate. 

The Service remains committed to conserving America’s fish and wildlife by relying upon the best available science and working in partnership to achieve recovery. 

Thank you for your interest in endangered species conservation and ESA implementation, and for the opportunity to testify. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Director Ashe, for your 

statement. I am sure that will provoke some questions, that is why 

you are here. 

Next, I want to welcome Kent McMullen, like I mentioned, he is 

a constituent of mine, a diversified farmer in Northern Franklin 

County. His family has been around for a long time, and I know 

he was actively involved in the bladderpod issue. 

So, Mr. McMullen, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF KENT D. MCMULLEN, CHAIRMAN, FRANKLIN 

COUNTY NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMITTEE, 

PASCO, WASHINGTON 

Mr. MCMULLEN. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment here today before this Committee. My comments are in regard to the intended U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or Agency, listing of the White Bluffs bladderpod for ESA protection, as a threatened subspecies in Franklin County, Washington. 

No notification was provided to our county’s board of commissioners or land owners for this ESA listing. If not for the notification from Congressman Hastings’ office staff to our Franklin County Farm Bureau, this ESA final rule would have been adopted by 

the Agency without any local knowledge. 

Our ninth circuit court of appeals has ruled the ESA requirement 

that direct, actual notice be provided to local government jurisdictions 90 days preliminary to any listing action. Instead, came after 

a final listing has become law, when the law specifically states before. This circumvention needs correction. 

Our Franklin County Commissioners, in conjunction with an outside counsel and public pressure prevailed in getting a 6-month 

suspension of the listing and reopening of the public comment period for 60 days, which ended July 22nd. During a public hearing 

on July 11th, speakers criticized the purposeful lack of notification 

and avoidance of utilizing best available science. 

Our county’s NRAC researched the ESA science references cited 

as support for the listings and we found a conflict of interest with 

the Center for Biological Diversity providing the science, in part, 

for the listing, while being the plaintiff in the mega-settlement requesting this listing and receiving Federal monies for conducting 

the science. We found a supporting reference to be a scientist with 

a dissenting view for subspecies status. And we found references 

calling for more time for research due to inconclusive data and the 

need for additional searches for more critical areas of habitat. The 

data is not accessible for public review. In all cited references, dissenting viewpoints are diminished, and supporting viewpoints prevail. 

22

Our NRAC deemed that the best available science was lacking, 

so farmers hired a certified agronomist to acquire Agency permits 

for sampling and provide a chain of control of samples to the laboratory selected to do the DNA testing. The lab chosen was the 

University of Idaho’s Laboratory for Evolutionary, Ecological, and 

Conservation Genetics. Under the auspices of Dr. Cort Anderson, 

director, this molecular lab is nationally recognized. Prior to DNA 

testing, both Dr. Anderson and Franklin County NRAC mutually 

agreed that the science must lead where the science leads with 

complete impartiality. If the White Bluffs bladderpod tested to be 

a subspecies, we would collaborate with the Agency to not only protect it, but work for rapid recovery. Lacking is any Agency commitment to what numbers of plants and geographic distribution constitutes recovery and delisting. 

The ESA process used for listing the White Bluffs bladderpod 

avoids best available science through predisposed relationships between the Agency, the Center for Biological Diversity, the scientists 

providing reports supporting a listing, and the independent reviewers. For all participants in the ESA process, the science has evolved 

over the past 40 years. The selection of participants at all levels 

has promoted biodiversity conservation advocates. As such, best 

available science is no longer a fundamental principle, and advocacy has become the gold standard driving ESA expansion. 

The DNA tests we conducted are the first-ever conducted for any 

bladderpod in the world. Our results from 15 plants spread over 6 

counties in Eastern Washington and 1 county each in Idaho and 

Oregon showed a 100 percent identical DNA sequencing for the 

loci, or segments, tested. The fact, there is no subspecies in the sonamed tuplashensis, that it is the same plant as the Physaria 

douglasii more commonly found over a four-State area. For the lack 

of a precursory $5,000 DNA test to compare Physaria douglasii to 

the alleged subspecies tuplashensis, over a decade of studies and 

hundreds of thousands of dollars expense ensued for what should 

have become a discontinued ESA listing effort. 

Our county’s commissioners, NRAC, and the best stewards of our 

resources, our Franklin County farmers, stand ready to collaborate 

with the Agency to expand studies. There are over 100 species of 

bladderpods named across this Nation, and four are pending ESA 

listings. Only one has achieved the benefit of best available science. 

That this is true after 40 years of the Endangered Species Act is 

but a sad indictment of the process where scientific technology has 

evolved, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has succumbed to 

unsubstantiated advocacy. 

I thank you for allowing me to provide comments on this important issue on behalf of our Board of Commissioners, as Chairman 

of the Franklin County Natural Resources Advisory Committee. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McMullen follows:]

Statement of Kent D. McMullen, Chairman,

Franklin County Natural Resources Advisory Committee

Thank you for taking the time for my comments today. My comments are in regard to requiring the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to use sound science and be 

required to do testing prior to listing under the ESA. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) provided no notification to our local government jurisdiction 

23

(Franklin County Board of Commissioners) or to the thirteen landowners whose 

land fell within the proposed critical areas of habitat and moved forward with listing under the ESA. Operating in Washington state, the USFWS is using the advantage of our Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that circumvents ESA requirements to provide ninety days notice to a local government jurisdiction preliminary 

to any proposed ESA listing. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals does respect and 

uphold this consideration. Clearly one of the issues that needs to be dealt with is 

that rules need to be uniform and not allow for the USFWS to find loopholes which 

allow them circumvent the process. 

Our Franklin County Natural Resources Advisory Committee (NRAC), which I am 

Chair, received notice on May 1, 2013 of a Federal Register notice for a final rule 

adoption of the ESA listing and establishment of critical areas of habitat for the 

White Bluffs Bladderpod. The listing was to become law on May 23, 2013. If not 

for Congressman Hastings office, this final rule listing would have passed undetected, just as had occurred with the May 2012 Federal Register notice of the proposed listing, proposed demarcation of critical areas of habitat, and the 60 day period of public comment. The USFWS had provided ‘‘notice’’ to our Franklin County 

residents only through the Federal Register and the Spokesman Review newspaper 

in Spokane, WA; a newspaper not circulated in Franklin County. The view of angered landowners was that the USFWS had purposely tried to keep the first proposal and subsequent final rule ‘‘under the radar’’ so that it could be quietly adopted 

as law. This was collaborated by a USFWS employee that apologized in private to 

a farm family and told them that they had been told to keep the issue quiet and 

to not inform landowners or locals. 

Franklin County NRAC serves at the pleasure of our Franklin County Commissioners and provides advice for relevant issues. In the case of this potential ESA 

listing of the White Bluffs Bladderpod, we advised the Board of Commissioners to 

retain outside counsel, Karen Budd-Falen of Cheyenne, WY for consultation. This 

resulted in a conference call to USFWS Washington (state) Director Ken Berg and 

an agency attorney. That conference call led to an agreement that USFWS would 

suspend the listing of the White Bluffs Bladderpod and the determination for critical areas of habitat for 6 months and reopen public comment immediately for 60 

days or face an immediate filing of Franklin County’s Board of Commissioners’ ‘‘intent to sue’’. USFWS realized they were in an indefensible position in having circumvented direct public notice. 

The close of the reopened comment period ended July 22, 2013. On July 11, 2013 

while the comment period was open, USFWS held an oral public comment hearing 

at the TRAC facility in Pasco, WA to record public comments to the ESA final rule 

listing for the White Bluffs Bladderpod. The meeting was attended by 225 landowners, farmers, the manager for our South Columbia Basin Irrigation District, and 

representatives of some key ag commodity organizations. 

Prior to this hearing, our Franklin County NRAC took the lead in notifying landowners and held a meeting with them on May 6, 2013 to update them of our research into the science reports cited as supporting the ESA listing of the White 

Bluffs Bladderpod under a threatened status. We had reviewed the references cited 

for support of the ESA listing and had found a major conflict of interest with The 

Center for Biological Diversity providing science, in part, for the listing when at the 

same time they were the plaintiff in the mega settlement with USFWS. Furthermore, we found a reference scientist’s Phd thesis on White Bluffs Bladderpod whose 

report indicated her dissenting view for declaring the bladderpod (Physaria 

douglasii subspecies tuplashensis) a subspecies of the more common Physaria 

douglasii. Also, several referenced reports stated more time was needed for searching additional areas of critical habitat and additional research. However, although 

listed as references cited for support of the ESA listing, it appeared a cadre of scientists used for numerous other bladderpod species listings across the United States 

prevailed in declaring this White Bluffs Bladderpod as a subspecies worthy of ESA 

protection. 

Due to those conflicting reports being referenced as supporting the ESA listing, 

we determined the best course of action was to hire a certified agronomist for the 

purpose of collecting plant samples and locating a qualified laboratory for contracting DNA testing for bladderpods from a widespread geographical area. Thus, 

we would allow definitive science to determine if tuplashensis was truly a subspecies 

requiring ESA protection or if it was merely part of a larger population reportedly 

found in four states: Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana. The key interest 

was the full integrity of science without bias. 

Mr. Stuart Turner of Turner & Company, Inc. provided us his skills as a certified 

agronomist for collecting bladderpod plant samples after he obtained a USFWS permit for sampling. Obtaining a permit was delayed when an agency employee refused 

24

to respond to Mr. Turner’s repeated stops at her headquarters and his pleas indicating her immediate response was necessary for a time-sensitive issue. To this 

date, she has completely ignored those requests. In two telephone conversations 

with this agent, she denied knowing anything about bladderpods and contended she 

was an animal biologist. Yet, she was referenced in two separate science studies 

supporting the W.B. Bladderpod listing and even wrote a blog about bladderpods 

posted on her Facebook site. We circumvented this employee and finally received a 

permit for sampling by applying pressure to the manager of the refuge area to 

where we had been directed. This effort was delayed and cost contributors additional expense for the molecular laboratory’s use of additional labor to complete 

DNA testing and summation prior to the close of the reopened comment period. 

The laboratory chosen for testing was the University of Idaho’s Laboratory for Evolutionary, Ecological, and Conservation Genetics, operated under the auspices of 

Dr. Cort Anderson, Director. In discussions of our project, it was established early 

on that we wanted the DNA report to speak for itself and that there would be no 

biases or outside influence brought to bear upon the results. That was fully desirable and acceptable to Dr. Anderson, Mr. Stuart Turner, and our Franklin County 

NRAC. Dr. Anderson was fully involved in every facet of the testing and summation 

of results. He personally reviewed all of the nearly 45,000 base pair genetic comparisons made by the molecular testing equipment to ensure accuracy. The laboratory 

is nationally recognized for molecular work and, in fact, USFWS is currently using 

the same lab in testing other species. 

In conducting research of the ESA bladderpod listing science references, we see 

a predisposed relationship involving four main participants. The USFWS requires 

ever-increasing budgets for increased staffing and burgeoning salaries and undoubtedly welcomed a plea-bargained settlement with The Center for Biological Diversity 

(CBD) to promulgate increased funding. The CBD achieves its goals of listing over 

757 species and receives government grants for conducting science studies used to 

support the listings. This gives the CBD a powerful voice as the premiere environmental advocacy organization driving national ESA edicts. The other supporting scientists referenced all receive Federal funding for their studies and repeat work is 

always ensured with consensus to every ESA listing. Finally, the ‘‘independent’’ peer 

review panels likewise garner repeat business for consensus. 

Our Franklin County NRAC found two scientists, E. A. Shaw and Reed C. Rollins, 

that have been cited for numerous ESA listings of bladderpods since the 1973 signing of the ESA into law by President Nixon. A 40-year career to date in naming 

species and subspecies. It appears that scientists, environmental organizations, and 

peer review panels all have economic incentives for ESA listings and have strayed 

from fact-driven science to become biodiversity conservation advocates. Selection for 

these advocates occurs for each science contributor and for Federal agency employees. This bias has become the gold standard driving ESA expansion. Pre-determined 

bias has supplanted factual sciences in the 40 year evolution of the Endangered 

Species Act. 

Defects in the methodology and process used to reach the determination that the 

White Bluffs Bladderpod as a threatened species are evident. There is a problem 

with unpublished supporting data. The Federal government generally requires all 

documents used by or paid for by federal tax dollars to be published for public scrutiny. A key document, an unpublished manuscript by Florence E. Caplow, et al., entitled ‘‘Evidence for the Recognition of Physaria tuplashensis (Brassicaea)’’ 2005, is 

the cornerstone upon which the finding was made in the USFWS Assessment Sheet 

in 2010. In the Federal Register on page 23987, a document of this name is also 

cited as the basis, but with a date of 2006. No publisher, or means to obtain it are 

listed. Searches on the USFWS websites for the document were not successful. It 

appears that the same document was used as before, but with a one year later date 

and no mention of it being unpublished manuscript status. All of this type of information should have been published and publicly available. Under the Data Quality 

Control Act, this type of documentation should not be used as it is not credible. 

Secondly, there is an issue in lack of attention by peer reviewers. The USFWS 

states that four peer reviewers—all experts in their field—were engaged to review 

the proposed listing. The USFWS acknowledges that there appear to be no investigations in the literature of the Taxon using modern DNA techniques. Yet, no peer 

reviewer noted that modern, inexpensive techniques were available to fill that gap 

of knowledge. It seems that a broader background in peer reviewers as to updated 

technology would have increased the probability that the USFWS would have been 

informed that their science supporting the White Bluffs Bladderpod listing was lacking and to have received that critique in a timely fashion. Having the requirement 

that DNA testing be used as a precursor to all other supporting science studies 

would be more time sensitive and economically prudent to possibly deter all subseVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:53 Jan 16, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Y:\00FULL~1\00AU01\8-1-13~1\82446.TXT MARK
25

quent expenses. This fortifies the argument that this listing was a rush to judgment 

to expedite terms of the mega settlement and verifies referenced science critiques 

that more time was needed for research and in the case of one science report, this 

White Bluffs Bladderpod was an ecotype, not a subspecies. 

There is diverse interpretation of the ESA’s Section 4 requirement for the use of 

best available science. It’s interpretation by the public, scientists, and agency employees indicate very divergent viewpoints. The book ‘‘Best Available Science, Fundamental Metrics for Evaluation of Scientific Claims’’ by A. Alan Moghissi, et al. 

should be used as the definitive standard for ensuring the integrity of the ESA listings process. 

In regard to the White Bluffs Bladderpod, the process for proposing an ESA listing requires a Small Business Administration analysis where USFWS is able to selfcertify to avoid compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). This allowance is instead, self serving. All USFWS had to do for determining economic impact on a substantial number of small entities is to conduct a 

purposely undervalued Draft Economic Analysis and thereby avoid the Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis and its’ mandated public comment period. Land values were 

averaged by using income figures for hundreds of thousands of acres within the Columbia Basin Irrigation Project and the year 2007 was ‘‘cherry-picked’’ as the year 

for economic analysis. Commodity values for farmland and a commensurate increase 

in land values have both increased dramatically in the years subsequent to 2007. 

In understating economic impact and contending there were only very small entities 

involved, the agency Director erroneously ascertained no RFA was required. This 

kept the listing process quiet, as the comment period was deemed not necessary. 

The results of the DNA testing was based upon the testing of 7 fresh plant samples, including the alleged subspecies tuplashensis that were taken from the northern end, middle, and southern end of the 10.6 mile range of the White Bluffs 

Bladderpod population corridor established by the USFWS. A sample of the common 

Physaria douglasii was collected in Grant County. In addition, the Stillinger Herbarium at the University of Idaho provided 8 preserved samples from 4 additional 

counties in Washington state, and one sample each from Idaho and Oregon. Thus, 

15 plant samples were analyzed for DNA sequencing. Segments of DNA (loci) were 

taken from areas pre-determined to always show species differentiation. Thus, one 

loci from the nucleus and 3 loci from chloroplasts from each plant sample were amplified and compared for nearly 3,000 base pairs of adenine, guanine, cytosine, and 

thymine (nucleotides) from each plant. If a subspecies does exist, one would expect 

variations in 4–10 genes. The results clearly showed there was a 100% match to all 

plants and no gene variations whatsoever within the loci that would differentiate 

species. Therefore, the White Bluffs Bladderpod, Physaria douglasii ssp. 

tuplashensis is NOT a subspecies. It is merely the same plant as the more common 

Physaria douglasii. In addition, the DNA testing proved that there was ‘‘gene flow’’ 

between this proclaimed isolated population and other distant populations of 

bladderpods. That means there has been ongoing genetic transfers in order to have 

maintained the 100% genetic uniformity of the tested loci. The ESA listing was 

based upon unreliable and subjective morphological differences without proper accounting for the diverse soil habitats that lead to phenotypical variations. 

As evidence of soil type influence on phenotypic expression (phenotype being a set 

of observable characteristics of a plant from the interaction of its genotype with the 

environment), we happened to have a farmer whose interest in natural plants found 

in our native shrub-steppe habitats led he and his wife to plant a ‘‘natural’’ plant 

garden in their sandy loam soils behind their house. Two years ago, one of the 

plants they transplanted happened to be a White Bluffs Bladderpod (from private 

land). This natural plant garden receives no irrigation and plants only receive an 

initial watering following transplanting to prevent shock and to re-establish the root 

system. The transplanted ‘‘tuplashensis’’ bladderpod exhibits completely different 

morphology now that it is growing in a more neutral pH soil. It bloomed in 2012 

and this spring, because of substantial rain (we are in a desert climate with typically less than 7 inches of precipitation per annum), there are over 100 new seedling 

growing. There are now 6 blooming mature plants bearing seed pods. Based upon 

the criteria used by scientists supporting the listing of the White Bluffs Bladderpod, 

this more robust transplant shows much varied phenotypic expression from when 

it grew in alkaline, highly calcareous paleosol soils (ancient buried soils now exposed at ridge caps due erosion) along the White Bluffs. Thus, it would be considered a different species than its contemporaries left growing along the White Bluffs. 

DNA testing proved this transplant was identical to all the other plant samples. 

The DNA results clearly illustrate that DNA testing is far more economical and 

definitive than the 17 years of studies and research that have occurred to promote 

this erroneous ESA listing effort. DNA sequencing should be the precursor to any 

26

ESA listing. However, a process that ensures transparency and integrity of molecular laboratory DNA testing is critical to prevent yet another participant in the 

machination that has become the ESA. It is interesting to note that the USFWS has 

a proposed budget at $602,000 for its first-year management budget should the 

White Bluffs Bladderpod be listed in defiance of DNA test results. 

Some of the questionable expenses in the proposed first-year management budget 

are $100,00 per annum for hand weeding. Yet this bladderpod only grows in soils 

where it has limited or no competition. Furthermore, the USFWS management plan 

shows they want no attempts by firefighters through ‘‘foot traffic’’ to fight wildfires, 

in fear of damage to plants. But, hand weeding requires far more extensive ‘‘foot 

traffic’’. There is even $50,000 for studying the effects of climate change on the 

White Bluffs Bladderpod! This for a plant that has endured the toughest of environments since the Ringold soils that comprise the White Bluffs were deposited by the 

repeated massive floods of Lake Missoula in Montana. Any efforts and hundreds of 

thousands of dollars spent prior or budgeted for future management could have been 

saved but for the lack of intent to utilize the best available science for a mere 

$20,000. Our DNA testing was deemed to be the world’s FIRST for any bladderpod 

species. 

The DNA test results are included as a 10-page attachment. Our Franklin County 

NRAC and Board of Commissioners entered the DNA results into record on the last 

day of the public comment period this past July 22, 2013. Copies were delivered to 

the USFWS by electronic mail to the Washington office at Lacey, Washington and 

hand delivered to the USFWS Manager at the Mid-Columbia River National Wildlife Refuge at Burbank, WA. The agency is required to consider this evidence prior 

to rendering its’ decision to list or cease listing efforts. It remains to be seen if Secretary of Interior Sally Jewel’s testimony before this Committee on Natural Resources that utilizing best available science is the prevailing consideration trumping 

the rush for USFWS to comply with the time limitations of the mega settlement. 

Certainly, this case of attempts to list the White Bluffs Bladderpods shows best 

available science has been avoided in favor of using consensus biodiversity conservation science to expedite compliance with the mega settlement. It also points out the 

shortcomings purposely practiced to avoid notification to those impacted by ESA 

listings. 

Our Franklin County NRAC stands ready to collaborate with the USFWS in expanded testing of bladderpods to determine the full geographic distribution of the 

common Physaria douglasii. Based upon our results being the first DNA sequencing 

ever conducted for bladderpods, there are over 100 bladderpod species named nationwide that want for best available science. There are currently 3 additional 

bladderpod listings pending before the USFWS: the Short’s Bladderpod, the San 

Bernardino Mountains Bladderpod, and the Zapata (Zapata County, Texas) 

Bladderpod. 

The DNA results should serve as a watershed moment illustrating the need for 

DNA testing as a precursor for ALL plant and animal species nationwide that are 

proposed for listings and also, to be used retroactively for all species currently listed 

under ESA protection. The ruse of the ESA process as it currently operates is ripe 

for reform. Our economy cannot withstand this economic plunder, property losses, 

and other ESA transgressions any longer. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide written comments and testimony before 

the House Committee on Natural Resources. We hope our Commissioners, NRAC, 

farmers, landowners, and agricultural businesses and organizations collective efforts 

in funding this DNA testing has served as a poignant illustration for many needed 

ESA reforms. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. McMullen. 

And last, but certainly not least, we have Dr. Rob Roy Ramey II, 

from Nederland, Colorado. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ROB ROY RAMEY II, PH.D., NEDERLAND, 

COLORADO 

Dr. RAMEY. Thank you. I have 33 years of experience with 

threatened and endangered species recovery on the front lines, including the successful recovery of the peregrine falcon and bringing 

the California condor back from the brink. 

27

I bring to your attention two key transparency and accountability 

issues with the implementation of the Endangered Species Act. 

These are issues that undermine the legitimate conservation efforts 

and impose ineffective and unwarranted regulatory burdens on the 

public, and it is a situation made worse by ongoing litigation. 

First issue. The ESA requires that decisions be made solely on 

the basis of the best available scientific and commercial data, not 

information. Although referred to as data, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service actually relies on published and unpublished reports, professional opinions, rather than the underlying data the studies are 

based upon. 

Reliance on the papers and reports which summarize results, 

rather than the underlying data, as specifically required by the 

ESA, has created an untenable situation where, first, far-reaching 

ESA listing and regulatory decisions are made without an opportunity to independently analyze the underlying data and assumptions. Second, the scientific method has been replaced in implementation of the ESA with the opinions expressed by the authors of the 

cited studies. And, as we all know, if opinions are stated frequently 

enough, they can take on the illusion of truth. 

What are the effects of this lack of transparency on the public? 

When the data are not publicly accessible, legitimate scientific inquiry and debate is effectively eliminated, and no independent 

third party can reproduce the results. This action puts the basis of 

some ESA decisions outside the realm of science. Furthermore, it 

has the effect of concentrating power, money, and regulatory authority in the hands of those who control access to the data. Information is power. 

For affected members of the public, when regulations are opposed 

but the data is not public, it is analogous to being accused of a 

crime, but the accused is never allowed to see the evidence. That 

is neither transparent nor democratic, and it relies on challenge to 

authority. 

There are sound reasons to question such authority. Everything—in key studies cited in ESA decisions, including some recent 

ones, everything has been found from mathematical errors, discrepancies between reported results and data, inaccurate mapping, subjective interpretation of results, fabricated data substituted for 

missing data, and, in a few cases, no data at all. 

Clearly, the Agency’s peer-review process and rigorous 

robustness checks are not effective, as they are portrayed to be. It 

has been my experience that when the data has not been provided 

to the Agency as obtainable under FOIA, then obtaining the access 

to the data held by researchers even after publication can be difficult, if not impossible. Seeking data from scientists and agencies 

can frequently resemble a shell game. Even though these studies 

were permitted or funded by the Federal Government. 

In more than one case, a court order was required to obtain the 

data. In my direct experience, recovery of threatened endangered 

species is most effective when there is an active scientific and policy debate about the best courses of action. Such debate requires 

open and timely access to the data. 

A solution to this issue is neither difficult nor costly. There are 

publicly accessible data repositories where this data can be deposVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:53 Jan 16, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 Y:\00FULL~1\00AU01\8-1-13~1\82446.TXT MARK
28

ited. All that is needed is a requirement that the data—and by that 

I mean all the data—to reproduce the study is archived. And this 

is done before the Agency relies on the decision. And narrowly 

drafted exemptions can be put in place when there is a risk that 

is demonstrated to a species releasing the information. 

Second, peer review is an imperfect filter on information quality, 

and it is not a substitute for public access to the underlying data 

and independent third-party review. Why? Peer reviews are rarely 

provided access to the data the study was based upon. While many 

peer reviewers are diligent, they often miss errors. Peer reviews 

are only as good as the information provided to them, and the 

depth of the questions asked. Conflicts of interest are not just financial, but they can be ideological, and they can occur within Federal agencies and among Agency staff that work closely together, 

such as the USGS and the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

To avoid the pitfalls of peer review, accountability is required. 

Make failure to comply with the Information Quality Act an arbitrary capricious act on the part of an agency. Two, ensure that all 

Agency-sponsored peer reviews, and those—including those conducted internally, be public information. If it is only science, it 

shouldn’t be protected under deliberative process. And, three, require that the agencies identify all information, including contrary 

information. 

The American people have paid for data collection and research 

on threatened endangered species through grants, contracts, and 

agreements and permits. They pay the salaries of Agency staff who 

collect data, publish, and produce work based on that data. And 

they are, for the most part, willingly regulated on the basis of that 

data. It is essential that the American people have rights to access 

that data in a timely manner. 

The ongoing bio-blitzkrieg of ESA listing petitions, lawsuits, and 

settlement agreements does a disservice to bona fide conservation 

efforts by allowing special interest groups to set priorities. There 

is nothing transparent about a closed-door settlement agreement. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Ramey follows:]

Statement of Rob Roy Ramey II, Ph.D., Nederland, Colorado

‘‘A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency.’’ 

Barack Obama (from Memorandum For The Heads Of Executive Departments And 

Agencies, on the subject of the Freedom of Information Act) 

My qualifications.

I am an independent scientist with 33 years of experience in conservation, research and management of threatened and endangered wildlife. Having worked on 

many species, including peregrine falcons; California condors; desert, Sierra Nevada, 

and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep; argali sheep of Asia; meadow jumping mice; 

sage grouse; delta smelt and African elephants, I am well aware of the scientific 

issues surrounding species listing and recovery. I earned a Ph.D. from Cornell University in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology; a master’s degree from Yale University 

in Wildlife Ecology; and a bachelor’s degree in Biology and Natural History from the 

University of California Santa Cruz, and postdoctoral experience included research 

at University of Colorado, Boulder and as a visiting scientist at the Center for Reproduction of Endangered Species at the San Diego Zoo. After five years as Curator 

of Vertebrate Zoology at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science, I served as a 

consulting Science Advisor to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Interior 

in Washington, D.C. I am member of the Caprinae Specialist Group at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and serve as a science adviVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:53 Jan 16, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Y:\00FULL~1\00AU01\8-1-13~1\82446.TXT MARK
29

sor to the Council for Environmental Science, Accuracy, and Reliability (CESAR). 

I consult on endangered species scientific issues and conduct scientific research with 

Wildlife Science International, Inc. 

I bring to your attention two key transparency issues with the implementation of 

the U.S. Endangered Species Act. These are issues that undermine legitimate conservation efforts, waste scarce conservation dollars, and impose ineffective regulatory burdens on the public. In the worst cases, they can harm the very species 

they were intended to protect. I also provide potential solutions that I think both 

sides of the aisle may find agreement on. 

Issue 1: Most ESA decisions are not based upon publicly available data.

The U.S. Endangered Species Act (US–ESA) requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) make decisions to list species as threatened or endangered, and 

enact regulatory actions to aid the recovery of species, ‘‘solely on the basis of the best 

scientific and commercial data available’’ (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)). Although referred to as data, the USFWS actually relies on published and unpublished studies, 

and professional opinion, rather than the underlying data the cited studies are 

based upon (see http://www.fws.gov/informationquality/and the Department of Interior’s Scientific Integrity policies (DOI 2011)). Despite having adopted the Office and 

Management and Budget Information Quality Guidelines which require transparency in studies used in regulatory decision making, currently, neither the USFW, 

nor the National Marine Fisheries Service have a requirement that data relied upon 

in decision-making be publicly available. 

Resource agency reliance on the papers and reports which summarize results and 

contain the opinions of scientists, rather than the underlying data, as specifically 

required by the ESA, has created an untenable situation where: 

1) Far-reaching ESA listing and regulatory decisions are being made without 

an opportunity to independently analyze the underlying data and assumptions upon which the cited studies are based. 

2) Resource agencies have effectively replaced the scientific method in implementation of the ESA (i.e., data, hypothesis testing, and reproducible results) 

with the opinions expressed by the authors of the cited studies, especially 

when those opinions are erroneously represented as if they were rigorously 

tested against the data. 

What are the effects of this lack of transparency on the public? When data are 

not publicly accessible, legitimate scientific inquiry is effectively eliminated as no 

third party can independently reproduce the results. This action puts the evidentiary basis of some resource agency decisions outside the realm of science and 

in clear violation of the Information Quality Act. Furthermore, it has the effect of 

concentrating power, money, and regulatory authority in the hands of those who 

control access to the data (Ramey 2012). 

For affected members of the public, whether they are hikers, horseback riders, 

hunters, farmers, or industry, when regulations are imposed (via ESA listing, critical habitat designations, or biological opinions) but the data are not public, it is 

analogous to being accused of a crime, but the accused is never allowed to see the 

evidence. That is neither transparent nor is it democratic; it relies on authority. 

There are sound reasons to question such authority. Key studies used in decision 

making on the greater sage grouse, Gunnison sage grouse, boreal toad, Prebles 

meadow jumping mouse, coastal California gnatcatcher, delta smelt, desert bighorn 

sheep, and hookless cactus have one of more of the following: mathematical errors, 

missing data, errors of omission, biased sampling, undocumented methods, simulated data used when more accurate empirical data were available, discrepancies between reported results and data, misrepresentation of methods, arbitrarily shifting 

thresholds, inaccurate mapping, selective use of data, subjective interpretation of results, fabricated data substituted for missing data, or no data at all. Clearly, the 

agency’s scientific peer review process that should have caught these errors is not 

as effective as it is portrayed to be. 

It has been my experience that when data has not been provided to the agencies, 

then obtaining access to data held by researchers, even after publication, can be difficult, if not impossible. As the following responses to data requests illustrate, seeking data can frequently resembles a shell game:

‘‘It is very possible that this data set does not exist any longer.’’

‘‘The USFWS data was deliberately provided in a format that would not facilitate 

a detailed analysis by those unfamiliar with the manner in which it was collected.’’

‘‘Unfortunately we cannot provide you with the raw data you have requested at this 

time.’’

‘‘We categorically do not release this information to anyone including the United 

States Fish & Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game.’’

30

While some researchers have been responsive to data requests, others simply ignore our data requests altogether. Some researchers apparently feel a need to control access to the data, determining if, when, and to whom it will be released, sometimes years after the data were collected. However, many of these studies were permitted and/or funded by the USFWS (or other source of federal funding) through 

grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements. Therefore, it follows that the data 

should be public, yet there is no consistent requirement from the USFWS that the 

data be public or provided to the agency. 

This problem is more widespread than one might initially think. In a notable case, 

colleagues at the California Fish and Game (CDFG) had to track down and net-gun 

endangered desert bighorn sheep from a helicopter so they could manually download 

data from the GPS radio collars (that provide precise locations at regular time intervals). They were forced into this extreme course of action because a researcher had 

reset the access codes on the collars so only he could download the data remotely, 

and the researcher refused to share the data with the CDFG who needed it for management of the population (Dr. V. Bleich, CDFG retired and K. Brennen, pers. 

comm). Funding for purchase of the GPS radio collars was provided by the USFWS 

for use by the researcher. 

In two other cases (coastal California gnatcatcher and desert bighorn sheep in the 

Peninsular Ranges) a court order was required to obtain the data. 

Clearly, the public interest in having timely access to data overrides perceived 

ownership of data by some researchers. As noted by ESA scholars, Fischman and 

Meretsky (2001): 

‘‘In addition to the rapid responses often needed to recover endangered species, most research in conservation biology is also distinguished by a dependence on government resources. The funding for research; the scientific 

permits allowing researchers to collect, harass, or harm animals; the permission for access to public lands; and the regulation controlling activities 

to ensure continued existence of imperiled species all point to the pervasive 

public interest in the resulting information. This public claim for access 

countervails the customary control researchers exert over data they collect.’’

In my experience, recovery of threatened and endangered species is most effective 

when there is active scientific debate and discussion about the best courses of action 

to identify and ameliorate threats, and how to devise more effective conservation 

measures. Such urgency requires open and timely access to data. 

A solution to this issue is neither difficult, nor costly. There are publicly accessible 

data repositories (i.e. GenBank for DNA sequences and Dryad for general purpose 

data archiving http://datadryad.org/), as well as traditional museum and library archives where data may be archived without charge. All that is needed is a requirement the data be archived prior to the agency relying on the report or paper in its 

decision making, and that the data (both raw and final data sets) and methods are 

provided in sufficient detail to allow third party reproduction. 

Are there situations where public access to data should be limited, such as revealing the locations of endangered species? In most cases, this threat is overstated. 

However, in those situations where there is a legitimate concern (i.e., where poaching has been clearly documented), the risk should be weighed against the potential 

benefits of more effective management aiding species recovery. If the risk of disclosure is real, then the solution is to allow only ‘‘narrowly drafted exceptions to the 

general rule of open access’’ as ‘‘broad exceptions tempt agencies and other decisionmakers to shield their programs from criticism’’ (Fischman and Meretsky 2001). 

Issue #2: Peer review is not a panacea.

Peer review is a useful but imperfect filter on information quality. However, it is 

not a substitute for public access to the underlying data that allows for an independent, third party review. 

Despite the best of intentions, there are no guarantees that peer reviewers will 

be provided access to data, or that if data is provided, it will be used in developing 

their review. As previously noted, peer reviewers do not always catch errors of significance. Moreover, as detailed in my previous testimony to the Committee (Ramey 

2007), if there was a bias or selective presentation of information by the USFWS 

to peer reviewers, the outcome of the peer review can be less than objective. And 

finally, despite agency assurances, there is no guarantee that reviewers be will free 

of conflict of interest or will deliver an impartial assessment. The reasons for this 

are summarized in the following excerpt from my recent paper, On The Origin of 

Specious Species (Ramey 2012): 

‘‘The problems that lead to these issues [with peer review] are three fold. 

First, the number of experts involved with a particular species is often limited. Whole careers are sometimes dedicated to the study of a species (or subVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:53 Jan 16, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Y:\00FULL~1\00AU01\8-1-13~1\82446.TXT MARK
31

species or population), and a listing can produce what is perceived as needed 

‘‘protection’’ for that species under the ESA. Additionally, ESA listings can 

have the effect of putting these experts into positions of power, money, and 

authority, through their roles on Recovery Teams, Habitat Conservation 

Plans, and consulting as USFWS ‘‘approved biologists.’’ Because few ESAlisted species are ever delisted, this guarantees a virtual lifetime of employment on one’s favorite species. Thus, experts used in peer review may also 

be advocates, or have an emotional, ideological, or financial stake in the proposed listing. ‘‘

‘‘Second, a network of individuals who work on a particular species (or 

issues common to several species) can form powerful ‘‘species cartels.’’ 

These social networks can influence the peer review process, provide a 

united front to advocate for particular decisions, and repress the publication 

of information that does not agree with their positions.’’ It has been my experience that the FWS and NMFS typically rely on species specialists, 

which exacerbates this problem.

‘‘And third, the use of other federal biologists in peer review, especially 

those from the USFWS and the USGS-Biological Resources Division 

(USGS–BRD), cannot be viewed as conflict free. The increasing codependency of the USFWS and USGS–BRD, results in a growing and previously 

unrecognized conflict of interest in science used in support of ESA decisions 

and the use of USGS biologists as peer reviewers on information used in 

ESA decisions. This extends to the role of USGS biologists who serve as editors and reviewers for scientific journals, and who peer review highly influential scientific information used in ESA decisions.’’

To avoid the pitfalls of peer review described above, the solutions are relatively 

straightforward: 

1) To ensure that peer reviews are transparent, conducted in an objective and 

consistent manner, that the underlying data are both available and analyzed 

by reviewers, and that potential conflicts of interest are clearly identified, accountability is required: make failure to comply with Information Quality Act 

an arbitrary and capricious action on the part of the agency. 

2) Ensure that that all agency sponsored and administered peer reviews, including those conducted internally by biologists at the USGS, be public information if they are relied upon by the USFWS or NMFS. 

3) Require that the USFWS and NMFS identify and make available online all 

information including contrary information that it has received. 

Conclusions.

The American people pay for data collection and research on threatened and endangered species through grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and administration of research permits. They pay the salaries of agency staff who collect data, 

author, edit, and publish papers based upon those data. They, for the most part, 

are willingly regulated based on those data. It is essential that the American people 

have the right to full access to those data in a timely manner, as it is in the public 

interest. A requirement that data and methods be provided in sufficient detail to 

allow third party reproduction would raise the bar on the quality and reproducibility 

of the science used in ESA decisions and benefit species recovery. Failure to ensure 

this level of transparency will undermine the effectiveness of the very programs that 

the data were gathered for in the first place. 

It should not take a subpoena (or intrepid, net-gun toting state biologists leaping 

from helicopters) to obtain data that should be public under the ESA. 

Accountability is needed in the implementation of Information Quality Act, particularly in regard to public access to data and the peer review process. 

Qualified third party reviews have the potential to reduce the workload of agencies, and improve the caliber of regulatory actions. 

The ongoing ‘‘bio-blitzkrieg’’ of ESA listing petitions, lawsuits, and settlement 

agreements does a disservice to bona-fide conservation efforts. Every time another 

species is added to the list of threatened and endangered species, or a new deadline 

is imposed by litigants, the resources to recover species becomes more thinly spread. 

Throwing more money at the problem is not the solution, nor is allowing decision 

making by fiat. The solution is to ensure that the scientific evaluations are done 

properly the first time, and that means relying upon data and objective application 

of the scientific method, as required by the ESA. 

Literature Cited.

US–DOI. 2011. Integrity of Scientific and Scholarly Activities. Department Manual. 

Part 305, DM, Chapter 3:1–38. Office of the Deputy Secretary, Department of 

32

Interior. available at http://www.doi.gov/scientificintegrity/index.cfm Accessed 

October 2, 2012. 

Fischman, R.L., and V.J. Meretsky. 2001. Endangered species information: access 

and control. Washburn Law Journal 41:90–113. 

Ramey, R.R. 2007. Written testimony submitted to the United States House of Representatives, Committee on Resources, for the Legislative Hearing on: ’’Crisis of 

Confidence: The Political Influence on Agency Science and Decision-Making.’’

July 31 2007. 

Ramey, R.R and L.M. Brown. 2011. Extinct Predictions: Dire extinction estimates 

have not been confirmed in the wild. Invited op ed for the Financial Post (Canada). 14 June 2011. 

Ramey, R.R. 2012. On the Origin of Specious Species. Chapter 4, In: Institutions 

and Incentives in Regulatory Science. J. Johnston (ed.), Lexington Books. Pp 

77–97. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Ramey, for your testimony. I will 

now recognize myself for a line of questioning. 

And, Mr. McMullen, I want to follow up, obviously, on what you 

testified to. The topic of this hearing is transparency. And in your 

testimony you clearly alluded that, from your perspective, there 

was no transparency. But let me focus on the ‘‘scientific papers’’ 

that I understand by your testimony was not made available to 

you, and the DNA test that subsequently was done on the 

bladderpod. 

First of all, I don’t think you said in your testimony, but that 

DNA test that you had the University of Idaho conduct was funded 

by whom? Turn on your microphone, if you would. 

Mr. MCMULLEN. It was funded by farmers in the area who raised 

funds primarily from the land owners. There were some ag commodity groups that helped contribute, and some surrounding farmers. They understanding the implications of an ESA listing——

The CHAIRMAN. So let me get this, just to make sure. Nobody 

was contacted about this listing until, you said in your testimony, 

we got wind of this and contacted you, and then you had subsequent hearings. So none of that was done. 

And, as a result of that, local farmers said, ‘‘Listen, we want to 

be part of the solution. Let’s try to look at this scientifically.’’ And 

we raised money—you raised money to conduct a DNA test. 

Mr. MCMULLEN. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is it. 

Mr. MCMULLEN. That is correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. Absolutely incredible. Now, would you contrast—

how would you contrast the scientific papers and their conclusion 

with the DNA test and its conclusion, and which do you think is 

superior? 

Mr. MCMULLEN. The DNA tests are far superior, because their 

testing is only based on subjective morphology differences, growth 

characteristics from plants. This plant grows in a very austere soil 

environment and looks different than plants in other areas that are 

in better soil conditions. 

The subspecies status was based entirely on plant characteristics, morphology differences, whereas the DNA test proved conclusively that they have 100 percent matched DNA for the species 

tested, which was as wide distribution that we tested of 6 counties 

and from 3 States. 

33

The CHAIRMAN. Three different States. Director Ashe, have you 

reviewed that DNA study that Mr. McMullen is talking about regarding the bladderpod? 

Mr. ASHE. I have not. 

The CHAIRMAN. Will you? 

Mr. ASHE. I will not. What I will do is get a recommendation 

through our field and regional structure, and through our——

The CHAIRMAN. Well, just let me ask this question. You are going 

to get a recommendation, OK, chain of command, I guess I can understand that. 

Given what you just heard Mr. McMullen say, with a scientific 

study comparing DNA, what conclusions can you draw from that? 

Mr. ASHE. Mr. Chairman, I was qualified to call myself a biologist a long time ago. What I would say, having worked for a long 

time in and around the field of taxonomy is taxonomy is a field 

where, like many other fields, you have lumpers and splitters. And 

so, some people use morphology, physical characteristics, as the 

principal mechanism to determine speciation. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well——

Mr. ASHE. Some people like to use genetic techniques. And what 

we are challenged to do in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is 

look at all of that data, and determine which is the best available 

data. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, let me—my time is going to be running out 

here, and I have another question. But do you not think that at 

least the testimony that you have heard—and I understand you 

haven’t reviewed it—is pretty persuasive? 

Mr. ASHE. What I would say is Mr. McMullen has—and his associates—have provided to us this new genetic study. We have reopened our comment period. We have suspended the application 

of——

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I understand the comment period has 

ended. You reopened it initially, but I understand that comment 

period is over now. 

Mr. ASHE. The comment period is over, but they provided us——

The CHAIRMAN. Right. 

Mr. ASHE [continuing]. With the information during the comment 

period, and we will consider that in looking at this decision. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you do DNA—are DNA studies part of what 

Fish and Wildlife does in other areas? 

Mr. ASHE. We use DNA analysis, we do. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Let me ask you this. This is the last thing. 

On the White Bluffs bladderpod, your Web site lists it as threatened. Does that mean that the Fish and Wildlife Service has already made up their mind on the listing and the critical habitat 

designation of that, since your Web site says it is listed as threatened? 

Mr. ASHE. Well, I think as you know, Mr. Chairman, we made 

a final determination. We have suspended that determination, 

pending further review. And so, the action has been taken, we have 

suspended the application of that action for 6 months. So it does 

appear on our list, but it has no regulatory effect. 

The CHAIRMAN. Finally, when will you have a final decision on 

that? 

34

Mr. ASHE. Six months from the date that we suspended it. So 

that would be about 5 months from now, I believe. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK, very good. My time is expired. I recognize 

the Ranking Member. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ashe, we have 

heard criticism of the multi-district litigation settlement. And I just 

want to get a few things on the record here, if you can answer 

quickly and hopefully definitively on these things. 

Has that settlement resulted in more or less litigation under the 

Endangered Species Act? 

Mr. ASHE. Over 90 percent reduction. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. So less, 90 percent less. Has the settlement resulted in more or less focus on conservation, as opposed to sorting 

and defending lawsuits? 

Mr. ASHE. More. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Has the settlement given more or less certainty to stakeholders who want to know the schedule for decisions 

about species listing that might impact them? 

Mr. ASHE. Substantially more. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Has it given you more or less flexibility to extend public comment periods, delay listing determinations, and improve science on species like those being discussed here today? 

Mr. ASHE. More. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Did you cede any governmental authority to 

a non-governmental group when you agreed to settle this case? 

Mr. ASHE. None. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. And basically, now, you have been allowed to 

proceed with listings that have been previously filed for that you 

would have had to sort of randomly meet deadlines on, depending 

upon court decisions. Right? 

Mr. ASHE. Correct. We now have a predictable schedule to work 

with. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. And did you commit to any specific outcomes 

in this settlement, or just that you would go through a public process with comments, testimony, and gathering of evidence to make 

decisions? 

Mr. ASHE. We agreed to the latter. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Now, the data issue, maybe this is a place 

where we can make some common cause—I understand that often 

these studies are funded publicly. And why would we not make the 

underlying data available for scrutiny? 

Mr. ASHE. If studies are publicly funded, if the USGS does work 

for us, for instance, then the data would be available through the 

United States Geological Survey. So——

Mr. DEFAZIO. What if it was someone with a grant? I mean 

often——

Mr. ASHE. Not necessarily. If they have an NSF grant or another 

grant, we don’t necessarily control access to the data. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Why would someone withhold the data if they had 

come to a conclusion that you are basing your work on? 

Mr. ASHE. Well, again, I think we have to look at the standards. 

The Service follows the established OMB procedures for the Information Quality Act. And the Information Quality Act recognizes 

peer-reviewed, published, scientific papers as——

35

Mr. DEFAZIO. All right. OK, and——

Mr. ASHE [continuing]. Presumptively meeting the standard of 

objective science. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. So you are a scientist. And so, did the people 

who did the peer review have access to the data? 

Mr. ASHE. They do. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. But again, why would a scientist wish to withhold that data? I mean if we gave them public funds, I guess we 

could require they publish the data, right? I mean we could 

change—we could put that in law. 

Mr. ASHE. Congress could do that. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. That might be something we want to do. I 

don’t understand why we would go down the path of withholding 

the data. 

Could you just give me—Mr. Chairman, I will enter this full 

statement in the record in the interest of time, but this is something I have often gone back to, in the Mineral King case in California where they were proposing, essentially, to build Disney 

World in the Mineral King area, which has subsequently been preserved and is very heavily utilized and visited, and it was Justice 

Douglas. And he was talking about, basically—and again, I won’t 

read the whole thing—but what is present in a teaspoon of undisturbed soil, and what it might mean for the future of humanity. 

But his conclusion I will read: ‘‘When a species is gone, it is gone 

forever. Nature’s genetic chain, billions of years in the making, is 

broken for all time. Conserve water, land, and conserve life.’’

It is a very elegant decision. And sometimes I have been involved 

in these issues as a county commissioner, a Member of Congress, 

and observant member of the public. And sometimes people think 

it is trivial that we are trying to preserve the Fender’s spotted butterfly in meadow areas in Oregon, or other species. We don’t know, 

if we drive that to extinction, what we have lost. Maybe we have 

lost the cure to cancer, maybe we didn’t. But it would be best to 

keep our options open. 

I want this law to work, I want it to work well, I want it to work 

in an orderly way. And one thing I observe is I think the budget 

for this Agency is inadequate, given the backlog of decisions they 

have, which does create uncertainty for land owners and businesses 

and individuals. And we can discuss that at another time. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. I am going to 

yield myself 5 minutes for questions, because I was the next on the 

list, anyway. 

And I have to admit, Mr. Ashe, I saw some of the news reports 

this morning for the first time, which does not put me in a great 

mood. But I do need to ask you a simple question that normally, 

in preparing a scientific document, one assumes that you start with 

the science first and then prepare recommendations based on the 

results of that science. Unfortunately, emails between the National 

Technical Team members that we have received, only because of a 

FOIA request, report that you have done the exact opposite. The 

recommendations were coming before the science. 

So, in one email—I think you can see it up on the slide—a research biologist emails his team with the subject line, ‘‘Citation for 

36

NTT Product,’’ and he said, ‘‘I have tried to identify those biological 

recommendations that may need a scientific citation. I am working 

on an introductory part on certainty of conclusions and inference 

base with regard to science without relating to it in any study in 

particular. If we don’t have the science, I am assuming that we are 

going to have to use our best professional judgments.’’

So, in other words, if you are going to do your own recommendations, if there is no particular study, you will have a chance to just 

make it up. 

He then goes on to say, ‘‘So, if I could get each of you to take 

a shot and identify a research citation that supports the biological 

recommendations, along with a full citation, I would greatly appreciate the help.’’

So, Director Ashe, first, is this consistent with your understanding of the scientific process? And are you going to defend creating recommendations using professional judgment and then asking for scientific support later? 

Mr. ASHE. Well, Mr. Chairman, I guess I would begin by saying 

yes, we use best professional judgment. 

Mr. BISHOP. And then find the science later. 

Mr. ASHE. When we have clear and applicable scientific data and 

information, we use that information. The law requires us to make 

a decision and use the best information available. 

And so, if there is little information available, then often times 

we go to experts and we ask experts for their best professional 

judgment. 

Mr. BISHOP. From where do you find those experts? Within your 

Agency? 

Mr. ASHE. We find them within our Agency, we find them within 

State agencies, as is the case here——

Mr. BISHOP. So what——

Mr. ASHE [continuing]. With Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 

Mr. BISHOP. So what you are telling me is, yes, you come up with 

the recommendations and then you go after trying to find something to justify it. And that is a legitimate practice within the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Mr. ASHE. As I read that individual’s request, it is not to make 

up science. He is asking people to look at the recommendations, 

and based on——

Mr. BISHOP. I didn’t say he is asking them to make up science. 

He is trying to find some science somewhere. The obvious recommendation, though, is you made the recommendations first; now 

you are trying to find the science to back it up. 

Mr. ASHE. They used best professional judgment to frame the biological recommendations. And this individual is asking people if 

there is science to prove or disprove those recommendations. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. So the process still is reversed. You are 

recommending, then you are trying to find the science. 

Dr. Ramey, let me ask you to comment on the slide that you see 

up there. Is this consistent with what peer-reviewed science documents should be created? Is this something of which a scientist 

should be proud? 

Dr. RAMEY. No. And in my experience, a lot of these professional 

judgments, the Service tends to go to species specialists. And speVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:53 Jan 16, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 Y:\00FULL~1\00AU01\8-1-13~1\82446.TXT MARK
37

cies specialists—so, for example, people that work closely on a species such as sage-grouse—form a cartel, if you will, of information. 

And they tend to agree with each other. It is called confirmation 

bias in the area of psychology. 

And so, instead of having decisions based on data, what you are 

getting is decisions based on opinions. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK, I appreciate that. I have another question. I 

would like you to respond to a question that DeFazio had earlier. 

But first I must—Director Ashe, I will talk about Utah. And 

since you are dealing with sage-grouse, I want to be Utah-specific. 

Your Fish and Wildlife Service sent a 16-page letter to the State 

of Utah criticizing our State’s greater sage-grouse management and 

recovery plan. In view of the documents that we found through 

FOIA, it is difficult to support that, since you are in no position to 

critique the State plan because of your questionable scientific practices dealing in these reports. 

Specifically, in this particular letter, came in three areas. Number one, about tall structures impacting it. You denied what the 

State was doing, even though, in the FOIA requests, your staff, 

your office, is still saying we acknowledge that the science on tall 

structure impacts to a greater sage-grouse is still evolving. 

In buffers, we have a 3-mile buffer around the lakes, because 

that is where they are. You insisted on a 4-mile buffer without any 

kind of requirement or scientific data to support it. 

And, three, you were dismissive of our disturbance limits. You 

wanted them from 5 percent down to 3 percent. But, once again, 

the 3 percent number is based on research data that has no support going with it, as well. That is according to this—I am sorry, 

I am 9 seconds over. I am going to ask you this. Will you withdraw 

that stupid letter? And if not, will you at least go through those 

three points and review those again and then get back to the State 

of Utah? 

Mr. ASHE. The letter was provided at the request of the State of 

Utah, so I won’t withdraw it. But we are in discussions with the 

State of Utah. We are in active discussions, and we have a very 

good working relationship with the State of Utah——

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I hope——

Mr. ASHE [continuing]. And will continue to work with them. 

Mr. BISHOP. I am over, but I hope you continue on with that, 

simply because that letter put a damper on those efforts going forward, and is negative, and it is counterproductive. It needs to be 

changed, it needs to be fixed. 

And I apologize for going over. Ms. Shea-Porter. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you very much. I have a question for 

Dr. Ramey first. You said the data is not public. And then in another part I read that it is not always available. So how much of 

it is available to other researchers or to people like yourself? 

Dr. RAMEY. Very few scientific journals have a data archiving 

policy by which the data set is published with the article or put in 

a repository. And so, a lot of these scientific studies are produced, 

but the data doesn’t go public. And I have had situations where I 

have requested data and have been refused the data by the researchers. 

38

Now, technically, under circular A110, the OMB, one should be 

able to FOIA the Agency and get the data on the research. However, if it was done under a grant versus a contract or a cooperative agreement, that is not going to be public. So there are different 

standards, and there is also an incredible amount of time and 

headache that goes into trying to obtain data. 

So, to answer your question, some data, but not much, is available. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. OK, so——

Dr. RAMEY. And then very important data that is used in decisions—so, for example, the greater sage-grouse, the 2010 listing decision is based upon a study by Garton et al, funded by the Fish 

and Wildlife Service to the tune of $74,000. That data has never 

gone public. That data is central. It is cited 62 times in the listing 

decision, but yet it has not been released. I have written to Garton 

personally and have been refused the data. 

And so, myself and other peer reviewers have found in the paper 

mathematical errors, unaccounting for error, reliance on a antiquated and totally debunked threshold for extinction risk. And yet 

the data is not public, available. And here we are spending billions 

on protecting sage grouse in many programs across the West, but 

yet that fundamental data has not been available. And that goes 

back to 2009. Why are we still chasing the data now? 

And so, the problem is it needs to be available and it needs to 

be available at the time of the decision. If we wait until it is too 

late, the clock has run out. And the clock on this one has nearly 

run out. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. OK. And, obviously, we are concerned about 

having access to this information. But I am going to turn my question to Mr. Ashe. 

It seems to me that this is a pretty—based on your own testimony, Dr. Ramey, this is kind of a dog-eat-dog world out there. I 

mean some of the ways that you actually talked about them is they 

sound almost awful, you know, one’s favorite species. It sounded almost contemptuous about the way you were talking about these 

peer researchers, et cetera. 

So, Mr. Ashe, does that make your job more difficult, if the people that you are relying on apparently have issues with one another? I mean how do you ascertain what to believe and what not 

to believe? And what is your position on making this more accessible? Would this lead to—in other words, do you have a majority 

opinion that makes you act, or are you looking at—and I understand the complexity of it all—100 different researchers challenging one another and then throwing it in your lap? And does 

that increase your risk of error? 

Mr. ASHE. I think, first of all, I would say the vast majority of 

the information that we use in informing our decisions is not government information. And so, in most of the situations, the science 

we are using, we don’t have possession of the data. 

And so, as we go through this process of weighing science, of 

course these are significant, weighty decisions. And you get competing science. Science doesn’t provide us with an answer, it is not 

black and white. And so we have to look at the voracity of the information. We ask other independent experts about what their 

39

opinion is of the science. And then we actually have our draft rule 

and decision peer-reviewed so that we get independent scientists to 

look at our conclusions, based upon the scientific information. So, 

it is not black or white. 

I would also say what Mr. Ramey is saying is intellectually stimulating, but it is challenging the very foundations of our scientific 

process for publication and discovery of new information in the 

United States. Our whole university-based system, our whole process of business research and development is based upon these principles of peer review and publication in peer-reviewed journals. 

Dr. RAMEY. Science is based upon data and reproducibility, and 

that is the fundamental issue here, Dick Feynman, who was a 

Nobel Prize winner in physics, says that if the data——

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. My time has expired, but I will come back. 

There will be another round, right, Chairman? OK. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. I am making that assumption. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. All right. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mrs. Lummis. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ashe, I would like 

to ask some questions of you that—because I am a little baffled. 

As you may recall, I used to be on the Interior Environment Subcommittee of Appropriations, and we had a discussion when I was 

there about a request that you all made. And I am going to go back 

and quote you from that testimony. 

You said, ‘‘One of the things we’’—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—‘‘are asking the Subcommittee for in this year’s proposal is to 

consider a cap on the amount we can spend to process ESA petitions. And that would be an important aspect of helping us manage 

our endangered species more closely.’’ You further said that a listing cap is ‘‘to help us better allocate workload among basic endangered species activities such as listing consultation and recovery.’’ 

I think in recent years you went on to say, ‘‘We have seen that the 

petition process has been beyond our ability to manage effectively.’’

Then I look at this testimony today, and here is my question. Are 

you making the case that settling cases behind closed doors is your 

best option? 

Mr. ASHE. I think the statement that I made to you before the 

Interior Appropriations Subcommittee reflected what I said that, 

for more than two decades we had effectively lost control of our 

ability to set priorities under our listing program. We were asking 

the Committee to help us limit that by limiting, putting a cap on 

our petition sub-activity. But the multi-district litigation settlement 

addressed the same problem that we——

Mrs. LUMMIS. OK. Does that settlement agreement ban the Center for Biological Diversity and Wild Earth Guardians from filing 

listing petitions? 

Mr. ASHE. They agreed, in the course of the settlement, to limit 

their——

Mrs. LUMMIS. Limit, but not——

Mr. ASHE [continuing]. Any additional petition——

Mrs. LUMMIS. OK, limit, but not an outright ban. 

Mr. ASHE. Yes. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Is that correct? 

Mr. ASHE. That is correct. 

40

Mrs. LUMMIS. OK. 

Mr. ASHE. And they agreed not to submit what we have come to 

call ‘‘mega-petitions,’’ so where they submit a 400-species petition. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Now, does that legally constrain the NRDC or 

Western Watersheds Project, or Biodiversity Conservation Alliance 

from listing petitions? 

Mr. ASHE. No, it does not. But those two groups, CBD and Wild 

Earth Guardians, were the two plaintiffs that were the ones that 

were frequently using the petition process and taking us to court 

for deadline litigation. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Is anyone constrained beyond the 2018 work plan, 

in terms of suing and these massive multi-petition listings, any 

other groups, including CBD? 

Mr. ASHE. Beyond the term of the 6-year settlement, no, there 

is no limitation. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. OK. So are you suggesting that the system we 

have now, as you have described it—backlogs, litigation, settle, and 

then repeat, backlog, litigation, settle, repeat—is that the best policy we can come up with? 

Mr. ASHE. No, it is not, Congresswoman. But I would say my 

chore, and those of us in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

our partners, are charged with implementing the law as it is written——

Mrs. LUMMIS. Yes. 

Mr. ASHE [continuing]. Not as we would wish it to be. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. And it hasn’t been authorized since 1992. Correct? 

Mr. ASHE. It has not been reauthorized since 1992. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. That is correct. It has not been reauthorized since 

1992. So, the problem that I have is we need a 21st century conservation model going forward. And the ESA, as it is written, is a 

very poor model for the 21st century, very poor. We know so much 

more than we did when the ESA was originally written. 

Let me ask Mr. Ramey. Are you opposed to the Endangered Species Act? 

Dr. RAMEY. No, I have supported this. I am a long-time student 

of the ESA. I think we can improve the implementation quite a bit, 

especially in priority-setting. And I think it is most important that 

those priorities be set by the people, and not by special interest 

groups. And, second, that the data be available so that there is true 

and full transparency in implementation of the ESA. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you gentlemen for being here. I yield back. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Mr. Tipton. 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank our 

panel for being here. Good to see a fellow Coloradan here. Dr. 

Ramey, thank you for being here. 

Director Ashe, I just wanted to be able to ask you a question so 

that I can kind of understand what Fish and Wildlife is doing. I 

made a couple of notes as you were speaking, and you talked about 

a sensible implementation of the law, assuring best science practices, and have noted that this is good government at its best. 

But we had heard Mr. McMullen make the comment that they 

had received no listing, in terms of information that was coming 

out. Is that really good government? 

41

Mr. ASHE. I didn’t say it was perfect government. And I think in 

the case Mr. McMullen is raising, we made a procedural mistake. 

We did provide notification; we did not provide the specific notification that the law and our regulations provide. So we did make a 

mistake in that case, and I think we are rectifying that mistake. 

Mr. TIPTON. And you are going to be able to rectify that. 

You know, that brings up, as I was looking at the letter that 

came out of the FOIA request that the Chairman put forward, it 

was talking about biological recommendations that were coming 

out. And you had noted in your comments, at least, that there may 

be no science available. So does it make it suspect for you that 

there may be some other interests involved when just biological 

recommendations are being made? 

Mr. ASHE. Well, that particular example was not actually an 

ESA process. That memo was part of a Bureau of Land Management planning process, and not an Endangered Species——

Mr. TIPTON. But some of your other comments lend itself to the 

point that you may not have any science really available, or the 

data is not available——

Mr. ASHE. I think when he——

Mr. TIPTON [continuing]. To make your best guess. 

Mr. ASHE. It is not a guess. If I go to a doctor, and the doctor 

has a limited amount of information available, a doctor uses his 

best professional judgment in making a diagnosis. I trust that doctor because of his experience, his knowledge in general in the medical field. And sometimes doctors have to work on limited information, especially in an emergency type of situation. And with endangered species, we are often working in an emergency-type of situation, and we have to work with the best information we have available. Sometimes that is expert opinion. 

Mr. TIPTON. Well, do some of these judgments actually impact 

private property owners? 

Mr. ASHE. They would. 

Mr. TIPTON. They would? What does Fish and Wildlife—what 

does the Federal Government do to be able to compensate these 

private property owners if they are impacted by this judgment that 

has been made? 

Mr. ASHE. We are subject to the same rules as any governmental 

agency with regard to our practices. And if we do something to——

Mr. TIPTON. Do they do anything for private property owners? 

Mr. ASHE. We provide technical assistance, we provide assistance——

Mr. TIPTON. Any compensation if that limits their ability to be 

able to graze their cattle, to be able to grow crops? 

Mr. ASHE. No, we don’t, sir. 

Mr. TIPTON. None? 

Mr. ASHE. No. 

Mr. TIPTON. So do you see a problem with that? 

Mr. ASHE. I think that all of us, as Americans, are required to 

comply with the law. And so I live in Montgomery County, Maryland. If I do something, I have to comply with the law in Montgomery County, Maryland. It may cost me money, but I——

Mr. TIPTON. So if we are looking at best science practices—I 

know you were recently out in Gunnison, Colorado. 

42

Mr. ASHE. I was, yes. 

Mr. TIPTON. And you moved up into Garfield County, too. And, 

Dr. Ramey, you can probably speak to this, you are a Coloradan. 

Very diverse terrain that is out there. I looked at the map that was 

provided by the BLM for the greater sage-grouse and Gunnison 

sage-grouse and, literally, the western slope of Colorado reaching 

up into Wyoming is painted in the light pink/red color as critical 

habitat. 

If we are going to use best science, if we have a recovery in Garfield County, it will never be taken off the listing because we may 

not have had the recovery up in Moffat County. Don’t you think 

that we need to have better practices when we get recovery in 

given regions, given different topography, we have to be able to 

have better policies? Because we are hurting small businesses. You 

come over into my part of the world. These are families that are 

worried about their future. 

You just told me that the Federal Government isn’t going to give 

one aid—one bit of compensation if they are hurting people’s business, their ability to be able to put food on their tables. And don’t 

we need to really take another look at this and some of the implementation? 

Mr. ASHE. I think you are taking a look at the implementation, 

Congressman, and I respect that. I think my challenge is to implement the law, and the responsibility is to implement the law as it 

is written. 

If Congress, in its wisdom, decides to change the law, then we 

will implement the law that Congress enacts. But my charge is to 

implement the law as it is written. And that is what we are doing. 

Mr. TIPTON. I am out of time. We will have another round. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Mr. Gosar. 

Dr. GOSAR. Boy, Mr. Ashe, I really wish you would share you 

sentiments with the Attorney General of the United States, because he is supposed to uphold the rule of law, too. And I am furious, and I think all Americans should be furious. So I hope you 

share some of those thoughts with the Attorney General. 

I want to start off by making a couple statements because I want 

to thank you all for being here. As I travel through every corner 

of my 40,000-plus square-mile district, I frequently hear accounts 

from constituents about the unintended consequences that the type 

of settlements we are talking about today have on local economies. 

I am pleased our Committee is continuing to focus on sound science 

and transparency. 

But I see a disturbing pattern with this Administration, not just 

with your Agency, but across the board. Repeatedly we are finding 

that the Administration is using fuzzy, unverified, non-peer-reviewed science to justify a policy agenda. I will give you just a few 

examples in my district. 

This Committee has extensively investigated the Administration’s decision to withdraw over a million acres of some of the most 

rich uranium lands in our country from location in entry under the 

mining law. But the Administration has a policy agenda and move 

forward. In our investigation, we found internal emails where a 

National Park Service employee stated that the draft EIS goes to 

43

great lengths in an attempt to establish impacts to water resources 

from uranium mining. It fails to do so, but instead creates enough 

confusion and obfuscation of hydraulic principles to create the illusions that there could be adverse impacts if uranium mining occurred. The hard science doesn’t strongly support a policy position. 

The EPA is currently pursuing regional regulations on coalpower plants in rural Arizona, the Navajo Generating Station, that 

is critical to water delivery in our State. They are imposing regulations that would require over $1 billion of investment under the 

guise of improving visibility at the Grand Canyon. Oh, my God. 

But the Administration’s own REL states that there is no evidence 

that the required technology will lead to any perceivable improvement in the visibility of the Grand Canyon or the nearby parks or 

wilderness areas. 

As you may not know, I was a dentist for over 25 years in Northern Arizona before I came to Congress. And as a medical professional, I take your comments disparagingly. As a scientist, I have 

to use peer-reviewed science and certified best practices to treat my 

patients. If I don’t use sound science, I am going to hurt my patients, potentially lose my license. So I have to go to peer-reviewed 

studies. Yes, I use that innate knowledge, but I don’t go to poets 

and philosophers for that information. And I think that would be 

the head of CBD who said, ‘‘I am more interested in poets and philosophers than science guys.’’ Go back, look up CBD, Center for Biological Diversity. You know, you are required to do statistics; go 

back and do it. 

Dr. Ramey, I am concerned—you didn’t get a chance—you really 

wanted to answer Mr. Tipton’s question in regards to—would you 

like to start answering that question? 

Dr. RAMEY. Let me just say that when I go to a doctor—and I 

think most people in this room have a very serious medical issue—

you seek a second opinion. And when you go to get that second 

opinion, you bring the data with you. And that means you bring 

your x-rays and your medical records. You don’t just go in and ask 

for an opinion. 

Dr. GOSAR. So let me stop you there. So you start with a hypothesis, right? You got a problem. You test it, so you do investigation. 

You come with the conclusion, and then you go back and re-verify. 

Dr. RAMEY. Correct, and——

Dr. GOSAR. Scientific method. 

Dr. RAMEY. And you should be verifiable by outside, independent, 

third parties. 

Dr. GOSAR. So you see a problem here. We are not getting this 

data. Ms. Shea-Porter brought it up, the lady across the aisle here. 

How do we remedy this? Because we are not—this isn’t even close. 

I mean this is just one tip of the iceberg kind of problem, and I 

gave you two or three more in my State. Tell us. How do we remedy this, coming from your opinion? 

Dr. RAMEY. It is very simple. Before the Agency relies upon a 

study, the data has to be put into an archive. And by that data, 

we mean all the data and the methods that are used to produce 

the final data set used in analysis. It is as simple as that. 

Dr. GOSAR. I mean is this an unusual ask? I mean when, you 

know——

44

Dr. RAMEY. No. In fact, there is a reproducibility group at the 

University of British Columbia, Vancouver. They published a paper 

in the journal ‘‘arXiv’’ out of Cornell University, arguing that it is 

very simple for papers to be published and the data to be archived 

in these public repositories. National Science Foundation and others provide for data Dryad to be an online service. It is easy to put 

the data in there. It is not a burden. 

Dr. GOSAR. And so, I mean, I want to come back to this doctor 

thing. 

Dr. RAMEY. I mean we are hard on the data in science, and hard 

on the issues. This is not personal disputes. It all comes down to 

what does the data show. 

Dr. GOSAR. Thank you, and I have run out of time. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Gosar. Mr. LaMalfa. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple for Mr. 

Ashe. 

Thank you for joining us here. A couple issues in our area here, 

in Eastern California. Fish and Wildlife has designated about 2.2 

million acres across the Sierra as critical habitat geared toward the 

mountain yellow-legged frog. This is something of very keen interest in my district, as well as my colleague, Mr. McClintock, on the 

east side. And that is—first of all, that is a lot of acres, 2.2 million 

acres for critical habitat and all the accompanying difficulties with 

using that land, terrain, et cetera, including 20 percent of one of 

the counties I represent, Nevada County, would be in this category. 

So we have—you see Berkeley, San Francisco State, National 

Science Foundation, U.S. Forest Service and every other researcher 

has shown that, again, given the mountain yellow-legged frog, that 

there is a fungus that is affecting the frog and its population, and 

the species is called the chytrid fungus—the way I pronounce it—

and that is what is responsible for the decline of the population of 

this mountain yellow-legged frog. It doesn’t have anything to do 

with timber operations or home-building, off-roaders, hiking, or 

other activities that people are involved. But instead, a fungus that 

has been known to be in the area, as well as having impact not just 

in California, but in many other areas of North America, and even 

around the world. 

So, what I am trying to understand is why are we, in California, 

being targeted once again for what is a naturally occurring problem. It does remind one of the issue with the spotted owl years ago, 

where people were blamed for a population that was mentioned 

earlier in this Committee that largely might be laid at the feet of 

the barred owl competing or taking out the spotted owl. So what 

you might have here is a situation where interference would actually stand in the way of the natural process of things in nature, 

where, unless somebody comes up with some type of cure for the 

chytrid fungus, that the remedy doesn’t involve, once again, perhaps changing human behavior for something that really has no 

impact. What would you say to that situation? 

Mr. ASHE. I would say you ask a very good question, but what 

I would say—the word ‘‘natural’’ is a term that people will interpret differently. And so, if we think about something like the 

chytrid fungus—I was talking with Ms. Shea-Porter yesterday 

about white nose syndrome in bats. Chytrid fungus is not a native 

45

fungus to the United States. It was imported to the United States 

like white nose syndrome was imported to the United States from 

outside. It is an invasive disease in frogs. 

And so, in the movement of barred owls into the Pacific Northwest, it was not a natural event. It was made possible when the 

people populated the prairies and planted trees and forests grew up 

in the U.S. prairies and the barred owl moved across the West into 

the Pacific Northwest. So some people may see that as natural, 

other people may see that as human-driven. 

But the point is the law requires us to consider disease as an impact to endangered species. So when we make a listing determination, we have to consider whether disease is a factor, but if disease 

is the cause, then that doesn’t mean that we have to regulate other 

activities. And so, forestry, grazing, the things that are not causing 

impact to the frog are not regulated, because the cause is, in that 

case, disease. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Well, they very likely will be. We see the pattern 

of that when you have a critical habitat listing, that whatever that 

habitat may be is going to have further regulation upon its usage 

or its entrance by human populations. So this is something that we 

are very interested in, what that impact will be, what remedies 

might be put in place by your organization and many others. 

So, what I would ask of you is that we will be having a town hall 

hearing on this in Nevada County on September 4th, and we request that you have some of your folks there so they can answer 

the questions for why 20 percent of Nevada County will be subject 

to a critical habitat that could affect their very lifestyle. 

Mr. ASHE. We would be happy to do that. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you. All right. I yield back. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Mr. McClintock. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. To follow up on Mr. LaMalfa’s line of questioning, Mr. Ashe, you seem to miss the point. The point that Mr. 

LaMalfa is making is that the Fish and Wildlife Service itself admits that the two principal causes for the decline in these populations is the importation of the fungus and of non-native trout 

that just love to eat these little critters. And yet, you are proposing 

declaring critical habitat as 2.2 million acres which is essentially 

the footprint of the Sierra Nevadas, from Lassen County down to 

Kern County. 

This is an area that has already been devastated economically by 

enormous restrictions that have already been placed on that region. 

It means severe limitations on what remains of grazing, logging, 

mining, recreation use, fire suppression programs. And yet, your 

own Service admits this isn’t the principal cause of the decline. 

Mr. ASHE. Well, again, I am not intimately familiar with the 

issue, so——

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, you need to get intimately familiar, because it affects the lives of hundreds of thousands of families in my 

district and Mr. LaMalfa’s district for no apparent reason, other 

than you seem to feel like doing it, when you admit that the 

science itself does not support such a conclusion. 

Dr. Ramey, when we were being told of the science-based approach that Fish and Wildlife Service uses, you were shaking your 

head and you responded, ‘‘Well, science is data-based, it is not specVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:53 Jan 16, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 Y:\00FULL~1\00AU01\8-1-13~1\82446.TXT MARK
46

ulative.’’ That comports with my understanding of science, which is 

that science follows facts, it leads them to a conclusion, they don’t 

start with a conclusion and then cherry-pick facts to support it. 

You were about to comment on that when Ms. Shea-Porter finished 

questioning. Would you like to finish your thought? 

Dr. RAMEY. It means consideration of all the data and all the information, including contrary information. And so, in my experience in these situations, sometimes hypothetical threats get elevated to the level of real threats, but yet the basis of those is very, 

very sketchy. 

And having followed the boreal toad issue as well, I can point out 

that this chytrid fungus issue, it is a worldwide problem, and that 

it is not something that critical habitat and regulations are going 

to solve. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And yet——

Dr. RAMEY. But let me add this other point here about science. 

And I want to bring up this point about it is not just the data, but 

it is in peer review—this is put forward as this gold standard, it 

is not necessarily—I mean it can be very good. But if they don’t 

provide the peer reviewers with all the information, then it can end 

up being biased. 

And let me just point out a quick one. Mr. Schiff put in a petition 

on the Coastal California gnatcatcher. Turns out that the peer reviewers on that study didn’t have a report that I wrote to Interior 

in 2006 that revealed that the data that were used in the basis of 

that decision had large parts of it that were made up, and that was 

obtained under deposition. And so——

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Made up by whom? 

Dr. RAMEY. Pardon? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. By whom? 

Dr. RAMEY. That was produced by—the deposition was taken by 

Rob Thornton, former Majority counsel here in 1978. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. No, but who was making up the data. 

Dr. RAMEY. That was the scientist, Atwood, who did his dissertation work—was a petitioner for the listing of the Coastal California 

gnatcatcher. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And you mentioned even just basic mathematical errors. 

Dr. RAMEY. Well, actually, there were missing cells in the data. 

And then what Atwood did was to fill in the missing cells using—

he wasn’t sure—he didn’t remember how he did it, and he didn’t 

remember which cells of the data he filled in with this fabricated, 

if you will, data. 

And so, subsequently, this was analyzed, used in the Service’s 

decision. But the peer reviewers on this review, they were never 

provided this information, even though this deposition was provided to the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Service. I have the copy of 

the letter from Rob Thornton, along with the entire deposition and 

then my report to Interior, which, by the way, never came out 

under FOIA. It was held back. So, once again——

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And this——

Dr. RAMEY [continuing]. If all the information isn’t put forward, 

things can be biased. 

47

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. OK. So deliberately fabricated reports 

based——

Dr. RAMEY. No, no, no. I am going to say the data, the missing 

cells in the data he had created—we are not sure if he used population means or what—to produce that. It was completely artificial, 

not empirical. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And this is what the Director assures us is 

their science-based approach to these issues that impact hundreds 

of thousands of families. 

I think we are going to have another round of questioning, so we 

can resume the impact of these policies in the next round. 

Dr. RAMEY. It is an egregious example. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Mr. Southerland. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ashe, I would 

like to ask a couple questions. And thank you for being here today. 

On page one of your testimony you stated, ‘‘The Service is an equal 

opportunity litigation target challenged frequently by industry, environmental organizations, States, Tribes, and individual citizens.’’ 

Those were your exact words. 

What is the percentage break-down—plus or minus a few—of 

each of those? More specifically, what percentage of litigation to the 

Service does the Service face from environmental, non-governmental organizations? 

Mr. ASHE. I will have to get that information. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Ballpark. You are a smart man. 

Mr. ASHE. With regard to the current litigation that we have now 

with regard to petition deadlines, about 40 percent of that workload comes from industry. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. OK. As far as—when you say industry, does 

that—because in your words you said industry, environmental organizations. What is the percentage of environmental organizations? 

Mr. ASHE. I don’t know that. I will get that——

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. But you know industry. So we know we have 

60 percent remaining. So, therefore, of the 60 percent remaining, 

if we exclude industry, the environmental organizations—I mean 

plus or minus 5 percent, 10 percent—what would be—the majority? 

Mr. ASHE. The majority, I would say. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. OK, thank you. On page two of your testimony you mentioned that the Service agreed to make listing determinations for 401 species. You said that some of those species were 

not warranted to be listed. If they were not warranted to be listed, 

did they end up getting listed? 

Mr. ASHE. I am going to have to ask you to repeat your question. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. OK. 

Mr. ASHE. I can’t——

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. On page two of your testimony you mentioned the Service agreed to make listing determinations for 401 

species. You said that some species were not warranted to be listed. 

So if they were not warranted to be listed, did they end up getting 

listed? 

Mr. ASHE. No. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. OK. Did the Service face any additional litigation if they, in fact, as you just admitted, did not get listed? Did 

48

you face litigation from these groups—and you mentioned industry, 

environmental, States, Tribes, and individual citizens—did the determination that those species not get listed, and the action that 

followed by omitting those, did that end up becoming litigated by 

outside groups? 

Mr. ASHE. I do not know specifically. As I said in my testimony, 

though, all of our decisions are subject to judicial review. And we 

are frequently challenged by both industry, by States, by Tribes, by 

private citizens, by environmental groups. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. OK. And I know with our time waning here—

do I understand correctly that—or, excuse me, on page three of 

your testimony you mentioned from 2007 to 2010 the Service was 

petitioned to list over 1,000 species. You mentioned that in 1982 

changes were made to make strict deadlines for making petition 

findings and shorten the time allowed between the proposed and 

the final rules from 2 years to 1 year. 

So, as I understand it, you have 1,000 species and you have a 

year to make that determination. Is that——

Mr. ASHE. During that period of time, 2007 to 2010, we had 

1,000 listings. We have 90 days when we get a petition, we have 

90 days to make an initial determination. Then if we make a determination that substantial information is provided, we have one 

year to do a detailed status assessment and make a proposal if we 

think it is——

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Right. 

Mr. ASHE [continuing]. A listing is warranted. And then we have 

an additional year after that to make a final listing determination. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. I am also on the Fisheries Subcommittee and 

we talk about data all the time. I am just curious. How does the 

Service assess the populations of 1,000 species, when at the same 

time NOAA cannot do a stock assessment on one species of fish in 

the same time period? I mean what kind of magical counting technique can you perform to do 1,000 determinations on 1,000 different species, when another agency can’t even give us a stock assessment for the red snapper? 

Mr. ASHE. Again, in my testimony I said that our listing program 

had essentially been overwhelmed by these——

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Right. 

Mr. ASHE [continuing]. Petitions and deadlines. That is why we 

entered into the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement 

gives us more time to deal with that, because time is the commodity that is most important in dealing with that. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. And I appreciate that. And I propose the fact 

that if you are overwhelmed, then NOAA is underwhelmed. And 

with that, I yield back. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. We will start a second round of questions. Mr. DeFazio, do you have more questions? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I do, but I was going to defer to Ms. Shea-Porter, 

who has another pressing engagement. 

Mr. BISHOP. Ms. Shea-Porter? 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you very much. How many of you 

agree that currently one quarter of the world’s mammals, nearly 

one-third of amphibians, and more than one of all bird species are 

49

at risk of extinction? Could you raise your hand if you agree with 

that statement? 

Dr. RAMEY. One hundred percent are at risk of extinction, because eventually almost everything goes extinct. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. OK. Do you agree right now that one-quarter 

of the world’s mammals, one-third of amphibians, and more than 

one of all bird species are at risk? 

Dr. RAMEY. I would like to see the data. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. OK. Because I think what we are looking at 

here is a pretty ideologically driven panel. For example, Mr. Schiff 

talks about changes in Administration. And the comment that reasonable people can disagree about the utility and morality of the 

Endangered Species Act—I am not sure—utility you can say what 

you want, but the morality of protecting endangered species is unusual to me. 

Dr. Ramey, I am very confused by what you are saying to us. 

OK? I thought politics was rough. This is what you said. ‘‘Because 

few ESA-listed species are ever delisted, this guarantees a virtual 

lifetime of employment of one’s favorite species. Second, a network 

of individuals who work on a particular species can form powerful 

species cartels. These social networks can influence the peer review 

process, provide a united front to advocate and repress the publication of information.’’ Then you turn around and say to me, ‘‘It is 

all data. It is all data.’’ But what you are telling me here—and you 

said it is not personal. 

So, first, you are telling me that it is personal, that these guys 

are twisting the data. Then you are saying it is not, it is just the 

data. So here is my question. If it is the data, and scientists come 

to different decisions, are they lying? Or is it possible that you and 

all of us don’t know everything, which means that the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service will make mistakes in this? It sounds like you 

think other scientists do that. 

And so, can we get to a point where we say, ‘‘All right, at least 

we know that we are united,’’ or I thought we were, ‘‘in trying to 

preserve these species, and that this is not exactly just data,’’ because you can’t have it both ways. You either accused your colleagues of lying—and it sort of sounded like you did—or there is 

something besides data interpreting, trying to look forward, and 

trying to see what happens. Because it is more than just the data, 

as you know. It is what comes next that is going to have the impact. And we don’t have that data yet, we don’t have everything 

we need to know about what this country will look like in 5 years, 

how many wildfires there will be, how much rain there will be, how 

many invasive species will come. 

So I don’t really understand, so I hope that you can explain that 

to me better. 

Dr. RAMEY. Certainly. First, about ideology. As an initial matter, 

you have to understand that, in truth, I have risked my life for endangered species. I have climbed 1,200 feet up the face of El Capitan with peregrine falcon chicks in my backpack to put them in a 

nest because of DDT——

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I am not questioning that. And I thank you 

for that. 

Dr. RAMEY. So I have a lifelong——

50

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. But I would like you to explain to me——

Dr. RAMEY [continuing]. Commitment, like Director Ashe has, as 

well. 

Now, to go to your point about these scientific issues, the problem with science is that it is performed by humans, and that people 

can have various preconceived notions and biases that go into 

issues. And so, the behavior is as wide as the human race. 

And so, Director Ashe, when we walk out of this room, we are 

the kind of scientists who will sit down and we are hard on the 

issues, but we are not hard on each other. However, we can’t speak 

to that for other people. And it doesn’t matter what side of the aisle 

people are on, what side of the issue, you do get the fringes that 

are like that. 

The problem that I pointed out in that paper on the origin of species is that you do get people who become emotionally invested in 

single species their whole life, even just in some populations of animals, their whole life is wrapped up in it. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Well, let me as you——

Dr. RAMEY. And so it is hard for them to see the bigger issues 

out there. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I understand. Some people actually call them 

experts, but I know what you are talking about, that there could 

be another interpretation. But what I am asking you right now is 

do you have the ability to rule just on the data and make right decisions all the time, or is there room for U.S. Fish and Wildlife and 

you and others to make mistakes and fail in predictions? 

Dr. RAMEY. Debate is the open and complete access to information and debate about the issues. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I am good with you having access. 

Dr. RAMEY. That is the way we arrive at truth. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. And I agree. 

Dr. RAMEY. And there can be differing viewpoints on this. But 

that is the only way. And, just by example, that is the way our 

court system works. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Well, let me go back then. 

Dr. RAMEY. It is a joint fact-finding——

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. So in other words—but I am running out of 

time, Doctor, I appreciate it. My question is—you said ‘‘just data 

driven’’—that when they look at the data, it is possible for Mr. Tipton to come to a different conclusion than I come to, and for Mr. 

Ashe to come to a different conclusion and for you to come to a 

fourth conclusion. It is possible, right? 

Dr. RAMEY. If you use the scientific method, you set your 

hypotheses in advance of data collection so that you have an objective way of measuring those against the data. What I am saying 

is that is the ideal. That is the scientific method. That is what is 

the litmus test of science. And instead, what we see too often are 

opinion surveys. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. But it is still possible to be wrong. Thank you, 

and I yield back. 

Dr. RAMEY. It is always possible to be wrong, but it requires a 

second opinion. 

51

Mr. BISHOP. All right. I went 30 seconds over, so I am allowing 

you this. But you beat me by 8 seconds, so we can’t do that again. 

I’m going to yield myself a couple minutes for questions, if I could. 

Mr. Schiff, it is not my goal to have you just sitting there, listening to everything. So I have two questions, if we can quickly go 

through them with you. In your testimony you state that critical 

habitat designations can have a significant economic impact on private property and local communities. Can you quickly explain the 

impact of the Obama Administration’s proposed rules to consider 

only baseline critical habitat economic impacts? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The problem, of course, is that 

by using that approach it renders the obligation to assess the economic impact of critical habitat a dead letter. And the reason why 

is because the baseline approach says we are only going to assess 

those economic impacts that are solely attributable to critical habitat and that can also be associated with the listing of the species. 

And because the Act says you can’t take economic impacts into account when you list species, therefore you can’t take them into account for any purpose, whatsoever. 

And so, what you end up having is, in my humble opinion, you 

end up having a farce, where the Service produces these hundredthousand-acre designations and say, ‘‘There is basically no economic impact, because we are simply adding on a superfluous layer 

of regulation that is no different from the status quo,’’ and I think 

that is demonstrably false. 

Mr. BISHOP. I thank you for that. Let me do a second one. The 

testimony we got as to sue-and-settle or sue-and-surrender from 

Dr. Ashe was riveting, to say the least. They are quick to settle 

lawsuits to meet deadlines to list species. Are they meeting the law 

on delisting and/or have they often agreed to settle lawsuits to 

delist species that warrant being removed from the list? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Well, on that I think it is more of a one-way eagerness to cooperate. We do, at the Foundation, file lawsuits to require 

the Service to act on its statutorily mandated deadlines. But we 

find that they are very loathe to act when their own science says 

that species are recovered. One example from California is the valley elderberry long-horned beetle, which the Service declared all 

the way back in 2006 was fully recovered. And, mind you, the protections for this beetle prevent very important levee and other flood 

maintenance activities in Northern California. And notwithstanding the fact that the Service’s own science and review said it 

was recovered in 2006, the Service didn’t file its proposal to delist 

the species until just last year. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right, thank you. Director Ashe, as I said, I was 

deeply disturbed by what I was reading online as I was getting 

ready this morning. To call your Agency somewhat troubled may 

be a compliment. But apparently, you have ignored months of stern 

warnings from the Deputy IG as to retaliation against whistle 

blowers to expose scientific misconduct within the Agency. 

Chairman Hastings has written you a letter asking for four specific elements of information. We have had a problem, clearly, with 

the Department of the Interior, in getting information back in a 

timely manner. My question is, how long will it take you to respond 

to Dr. Hastings’ letter on these very significant allegations? 

52

Mr. ASHE. I can’t give you a specific timeline, Congressman 

Bishop, but we are working with the Department and we will respond to the Chairman’s request. 

Mr. BISHOP. Can you give me a ballpark of when that will be? 

As I said, we waited months. And these kind of allegations cannot 

go on that long. 

Mr. ASHE. We just got the request yesterday, and we are looking 

at the request, and I cannot give you a timeline. 

Mr. BISHOP. I find that somewhat unfortunate, that we cannot 

get that kind of timeline. I wanted to ask a question about one of 

the other statements you gave—I think it was to Mr. Southerland, 

that 40 percent of these lawsuits are coming from the business industry. Is that dealing with critical habitat? That dealing with listings? How do you make that kind of a basic assumption? I realize 

you told them you needed to come up with firm data later on, but 

you were making that off the top of your head. I have questions 

about where the top of your head is. 

Mr. ASHE. What I gave him was—we were discussing this matter 

yesterday, that the nature of the pending deadline litigation—so 

these are deadline-based cases that are currently pending. Forty 

percent of those have come from industry. 

Mr. BISHOP. So you are not saying that all litigation is coming—

40 percent of all litigation is coming from industry. 

Mr. ASHE. No, sir, I am not. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. That would be much more accurate. I do want 

to say one last thing about your analogy with the doctor, and I am 

glad that Dr. Gosar took issue with it at the same time. With your 

analogy, it would simply be when I made an appointment with the 

doctor he would make a recommendation, a diagnosis when I called 

on the phone, and when I visit he would immediately start to operate on me. 

What we are talking about is the order should be science, expert 

opinion, then come to recommendations. You have reversed that 

process. You are making recommendations, trying to find science. 

In lieu of that you are going to expert opinions. And that is what 

I find frustrating. 

All right. To Mr. Costa—I don’t know if you are prepared. You 

have not—effort to give any questions here. Do you have some? I 

am—let me rephrase that. 

Mr. COSTA. I am always prepared. 

Mr. BISHOP. Well, I am not going to respond to that one. Are you 

prepared to ask questions now, or do you need some time? 

Mr. COSTA. No, I am going to pass at this time——

Mr. BISHOP. OK. 

Mr. COSTA [continuing]. Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for 

your inquiry. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Mr. DeFazio you passed the last time. 

Are you ready to go back at it? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes, I will. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, George Miller wrote, and I was a 

cosponsor with him—had been involved in an attempt to update 

the Endangered Species Act back in 1997. And one of the key components of that was to have the Federal Government require the 

Federal Government to work with States on species recovery plan, 

53

development, and implementation, which has been a bone of contention here over a number of listings, particularly the sage-grouse 

on that. 

Do you have a tool now where you can do that, work with the 

States on these——

Mr. ASHE. We can, Mr. DeFazio, and we are. I think we are 

working with States through our traditional Section VI grants, Section VI of the Endangered Species Act. We have just recently announced an innovative and ground-breaking effort with the State 

of Florida, where we are making joint determinations with Florida 

under their endangered species law. We have a vibrant relationship 

with the State of California and the implementation of their law. 

We are working with all 11 range States to help come up with a 

comprehensive strategy for the conservation of the sage-grouse. We 

are working with all of the five range States within the range of 

the prairie chicken to work on a range-wide conservation plan. 

So, States are an integral part and a growing part of the implementation of the Endangered Species Act. We have worked with 

the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and we have put together a joint Federal-to-State Task Force on the implementation 

of the Endangered Species Act. So trying to work on how we can 

improve, what are some of the innovations that we can do a better 

job working with our State partners. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Is that what the Cooperative Endangered Species 

Recovery Fund is used for? 

Mr. ASHE. In part. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. In part. And, in your opinion, is that fund ade- quate? I know it is being proposed that it be reduced $9 million, 

which would be—on the House side, which would be $17 million 

less than the President’s request. I mean do you feel these funds 

are—which you apparently use to cooperate, as I understand it, 

with States to work on particularly non-Federal lands, if you are 

developing these comprehensive plans, are——

Mr. ASHE. I think as you know, if we compared the President’s 

budget in 2013 and 2014 to where we ended up with the continuing 

resolution and sequestration and now the bill that the House Subcommittee reported last week, I think you will see a pretty stark 

difference in terms of what we are requesting. We have requested 

increases in the Cooperative Endangered Species——

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. But I mean there are States who are interested in working with you, but they also lack resources. 

Mr. ASHE. Right. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. And this is one way to help the States to work 

with you. Right? 

Mr. ASHE. They do. And one of the casualties in the Subcommittee’s budget mark-up from last week was the State Wildlife Action 

grants. And those State grants are the money that the States use 

to hire what we call non-game professionals. So a lot of the people 

that are working on these endangered or threatened species issues 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, that funding was completely eliminated. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Back to this issue of data. If you let—I believe 

that he mentioned—did you say the sage-grouse, that they let the 

grant——

54

Dr. RAMEY. Yes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. And so you let the grant for the sage-grouse, and 

yet you didn’t require—I mean couldn’t you condition your grants 

to say, ‘‘If we give you a grant, you are going to have to publish 

the underlying data and give us the report?’’

Mr. ASHE. If the Fish and Wildlife Service issues a grant, then 

we will have access to the underlying data. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. And make it publicly available? 

Mr. ASHE. Yes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. So that is a requirement in the grants themselves? 

Mr. ASHE. I do not know the answer to that question. But if we 

issued the grant, then we will have access to the underlying data. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. 

Dr. RAMEY. It is not a condition in that particular——

Mr. DEFAZIO. What is that? 

Dr. RAMEY. It is not a condition in that particular—a cooperative 

agreement or a grant. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. 

Dr. RAMEY. So——

Mr. DEFAZIO. But, you know, I think from what you have heard 

here today, we would be interested that, if public funds are used, 

generally, that should be made publicly available. 

Mr. ASHE. I agree with that principle. 

Dr. RAMEY. Simple fix. It is a simple fix. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes. Well, hopefully. I am just finding out if they 

have administrative authority to do it, or whether we need to give 

statutory authority. It seems that they have administrative authority to do that. So—OK. 

I was going to—I have one other question, very quickly. We mentioned the 40 percent of the litigation on deadlines is from industry. And then we had Pat Parento from Vermont who said that 80 

percent of the critical habitat litigation is from opponents of listing. 

Does that sound right to you? 

Mr. ASHE. I would have to get back to you on that question. But 

as I said, we are frequently sued by industry. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Both sides. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Mrs. Lummis, do you have other questions? 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Yes. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Ramey, is the 

lack of data and the secretive nature by which the Fish and Wildlife treats the data a problem that is on par with litigation, in 

terms of challenges that we face to successfully implement the recovery of species? 

Dr. RAMEY. Well, they are different issues. But the ongoing issue 

with the lack of data, that cuts across administrations. That is a 

long-term issue. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. OK. So is the problem with the Act itself? 

Dr. RAMEY. I think the Act is actually very clear in its language, 

because it requires best-available scientific and commercial data. 

So it is clear there. It is just in the implementation of that Act. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. If you could make any changes to the Act itself, 

what would they be? 

55

Dr. RAMEY. I have been asked that before. I would ensure that 

the data the decisions are based upon is public. And by that I mean 

all the data from raw data to final data sets that is used in that 

are publicly available, and that is be for free. Because it is the little 

guy that can’t afford to chase down the data and pay thousands of 

dollars for it from the Natural Diversity data base programs. I 

mean those are thousands of dollars, those requests, for some of 

the locations. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you. Same questions. Do you think the Act 

itself, ESA, is adequate to address some of the issues that we are 

debating today? 

Mr. SCHIFF. I think the problem is—in large part, as Dr. Ramey 

explained—the question of administration. Certainly the Service 

can be more forthright in the presentation of its materials. Also, 

the Service can more closely abide by the law. 

Part of the problem with the critical habitat litigation that we 

have been discussing is that the Service has a practice of not following the strict definition of ‘‘critical habitat,’’ and rather, uses a 

broad-brush approach and relies upon the regulated public to say, 

‘‘No, you have proposed something too broadly; you should narrow 

it down.’’

Mrs. LUMMIS. Has part of the sort of creep in the way that ESA 

is written versus the way it is administered come through the 

courts? 

Mr. SCHIFF. I think it is fair to say that the courts have certainly 

OK’d many of the Service’s interpretations of the Act, but that ultimately is a problem with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in TVA

v. Hill, where the court basically said that the Endangered Species 

Act makes species preservation the highest priority of the Federal 

Government, which I think is demonstrably false, and, again, I 

would say is immoral. 

We have situations, for example, in California where Endangered 

Species Act regulation led to significant water cutbacks to farms 

and towns in the Central Valley, leading to double-digit unemployment, and I think that is, frankly, immoral, and, frankly, not what 

the 1973 Congress intended when it enacted the Endangered Species Act. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. How could Congress step in and rectify that? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Well, it is certainly not my place to recommend legislation. But just as a citizen, I think it is only fair that if individual land owners are forced to bear disproportionately the cost of 

environmental regulation to produce a benefit that we all enjoy—

say species preservation—they should be compensated for that. It 

is unjust that they should have to disproportionately bear the cost 

of something that we all enjoy from. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. McMullen, would you like to weigh in on this? 

Mr. MCMULLEN. Yes. And with the land owners that were not 

notified on the White Bluffs bladderpod issue, there were severe repercussions for an ESA listing. Buffer zones could be imposed, 

which the director of the Washington office of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife denied, and we showed them that buffer zones are routinely imposed. And it also has had an economic impact right now, 

because some of these people are retired and lease their farms out 

to other farmers. Farmers are not willing to grow crops on that 

56

land because they fear ESA impositions. So, yes, there is severe——

Mrs. LUMMIS. I know the feeling. Our land was posted regarding 

the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. 

Mr. Ashe, what is your opinion on these—on this round of questions? 

Mr. ASHE. Can the Endangered Species Act be improved? I would 

certainly say yes. Yes, it can. It is like every other law. And our 

implementation of the law over time has taught us how to—I think 

how to implement the law better, and how to use the inherent 

flexibility in the Act. 

But I think, as you know—to get back to the issues of the scientific information, Mrs. Lummis—like when we delisted the wolf, 

the environmental community doesn’t agree with our science. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Right, right. 

Mr. ASHE. And so, the first course of action for people who disagree with our decisions is to try to challenge our science and so 

I think that the law can certainly be better, and we are involved 

with efforts now to continue to improve the law and make it better 

and learn from our mistakes and learn from our successes. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. Panel, you are going to have now three 

Californians in a row, so this is the difficult time for you. 

Mr. Costa, you ready? 

Mr. COSTA. Ready. To follow up on the last question, I mean, 

isn’t that really putting the finger on part of the great challenge 

with the Endangered Species Act, and that is trying to get any 

sense of agreement on what sound science is? 

Mr. ASHE. That——

Mr. COSTA. I mean the science changes in many——

Mr. ASHE. That is a challenge. I mean science does change over 

time. We learn over time. We learn new things. And as Ms. SheaPorter was talking about, reasonable people will look at the 

same——

Mr. COSTA. Set of facts. 

Mr. ASHE [continuing]. Information and come to different conclusions. 

Mr. COSTA. And come up with different conclusions. And to that 

end, isn’t the default position always—it seems to me on these 

issues affecting ESA—the default position is that if you don’t agree 

with the final decision, is to then say that sound science wasn’t applied? 

Mr. ASHE. That is quite frequently the default. 

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Schiff, would you concur? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Well, I think it is fair to say that using the best 

available data is often times the crux. But often times it is just a 

question of the interpretation of the law. And in my experience, I 

think the Fish and Wildlife Service has routinely adopted an interpretation of the law that is broader than necessary. 

Mr. COSTA. And that changes from administration to administration. 

Mr. SCHIFF. It certainly depends upon the practice of the Agency. 

Mr. COSTA. Right. And I mean, regardless of the change politically, you have a whole host of folks at the mid level, biologists and 

57

other officers, administrations come and go, but they stay. Is that 

not correct? And therefore, it becomes a challenge to make changes, 

even if there is different interpretation of how the ESA is applied. 

Mr. SCHIFF. There is no doubt—in my written testimony I make 

clear that many of the problems we see today are simply an exacerbation of long-term trends. 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. Mr. Ashe, you have been there since 2011 in 

your current position. Is that correct? 

Mr. ASHE. June of 2011. And Mr. Schiff, are both of you familiar 

with the issues that we have had in California with the biological 

opinions on salmonid and delta smelt? 

Mr. ASHE. I am. 

Mr. COSTA. OK. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Yes, I am as well. 

Mr. COSTA. Wonderful. So, we have biological opinions on both 

the salmonid and the smelt, as you both know, that were found in 

court to be remanded, of which the Department of the Interior is 

now doing, and they are actually doing what they should have done 

in the first place, which is combining the two biological opinions. 

Senator Feinstein and I requested a National Academy of Science 

report that maybe both of you are familiar with that confirmed 

more or less what the court determined, and that is that the best 

science wasn’t being used. And yet, we saw the application this 

year of the operation of this Federal and State water projects continuing to operate under opinions that have been determined by 

the court to be not using the best science, and that are currently 

being reformulated. Can you explain that to me? 

Mr. ASHE. I will try. That, the Bay delta area and the Bay delta 

conservation planning process, certainly one of the most——

Mr. COSTA. No, no, no, I—don’t filibuster me. I know all——

Mr. ASHE. I think that——

Mr. COSTA. I am deeply involved in all of that is going on. Why 

are the projects operating currently under these flawed opinions? 

Mr. ASHE. While we were——

Mr. COSTA. The court has determined——

Mr. ASHE. While we are working on a new biological opinion we 

have to work under the existing biological opinion. 

Mr. COSTA. Even though they are flawed? 

Mr. ASHE. Even though they are flawed. We can recognize and 

we can work within those——

Mr. COSTA. Wouldn’t that question—and your cooperation with 

the Bureau of Reclamation to then determine some sort of flexibility, realizing that you are now going back to the drawing board 

and formulating a new combined biological opinion in terms of how 

you go forward and operate in the interim basis, given the crisis 

we are having on water? 

Mr. ASHE. Well, I would give great credit to the Bureau of Reclamation, because I think we are working hand-in-glove with the 

Bureau to ensure that the project can operate and continue to provide the benefits that it provides for the citizens of California and 

conserve the species while we revise the biological opinion. 

Mr. COSTA. Under the current biological opinion you had an opportunity to opine—and you did—as to whether you operated under 

the most conservative regime of the levels of fish intake versus—

58

out of 370 that you could take, you ended up, I think, well under 

300—280-some. 

Mr. ASHE. Under 300. 

Mr. COSTA. Right. 

Mr. ASHE. Yes. 

Mr. COSTA. And as a result of that, we lost 400,000 acre-feet of 

water in January, February, and March. Some estimate as much 

as 812,000 acre-feet of water. We can do better than that. You—

in terms of the operations of these projects. 

Mr. ASHE. Well, hopefully we can do better. And we are working 

with the State of California and others to try to get to a place 

where we can——

Mr. COSTA. But that is the long-term stuff. The short-term stuff 

is what is so critical. We have 200,000 to 300,000 acres of very productive land that is not in production this year as a result of the 

decisions you made in January, February, and March. 

Mr. ASHE. Well, we made decisions in accordance with the biological opinion that is currently pending. And so we are following 

the law. I understand the frustration, but I will note——

Mr. COSTA. But you will use the flexibility that you have. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK, I am going to interrupt here. I appreciate your 

good questions, though. Mr. LaMalfa? 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to follow-up 

with Mr. Ashe on the yellow-legged frog. 

So, am I to conclude when—your answer earlier, that a designation of 2.2 million acres, but the acknowledgment that the chytrid 

fungus is something that is not human-caused, therefore, in the 

designation of these 2.2 million acres, there would be no curtailing 

of human activity of timber operations or home-building or offroaders because the fungus isn’t the fault of those activities? Is 

that a conclusion that we can assume, that the fungus is at fault 

and not these activities on these lands that are——

Mr. ASHE. I guess I would say, Congressman, I am adopting your 

presumption. You said that the Fish and Wildlife Service has found 

that is the only cause of the decline of the yellow-legged frog. 

And——

Mr. LAMALFA. No, it was UC Berkeley, San Francisco State, National Science Foundation, U.S. Forest Service, and every other researcher has found that the fungus is responsible. 

Mr. ASHE. I would say that I think that the critical habitat that 

you were discussing is a proposal by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. And so, yes, we would consider—we have a similar situation with the wolverine, where the wolverine is declining and its 

habitat is being lost as a result of climate change. And it relies on 

a deep snowpack well into the summer, as habitat. We are proposing to list the wolverine. But because the impact to the wolverine is caused by a changing climate, we are not proposing to 

regulate forest practices or road construction or grazing or ski area 

development or anything like that, because those are not the contributing factors. 

Mr. LAMALFA. So what does a critical habitat area mean, if you 

are not curtailing people? Because you can’t curtail weather, you 

can’t curtail a fungus. 

59

Mr. ASHE. It may likely mean nothing. The law, though, requires 

us to designate critical habitat. It is not a non-discretionary function. The law requires us to do it. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Well, there is a lot of latitude in the law. We were 

hearing about the biological opinion that you would have latitude—

or maybe a misused opinion, but the latitude within it. And then 

it seems like the latitude has expanded a lot. 

Mr. ASHE. But the law does not allow us latitude regarding the 

publication of critical habitat. It requires us to publish——

Mr. LAMALFA. No, but in the data leading up to it as to what 

the critical habitat area should be, or how that is interpreted, 

that——

Mr. ASHE. Exactly. 

Mr. LAMALFA [continuing]. We keep coming back to Mr.——

Mr. ASHE. We do have discretion there. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. 

Mr. ASHE. Yes. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Let me shift gears to another important issue in 

Central California. We have a real problem with private property 

here. And a gentleman, he and his brother, Kenny and Andrew 

Watkins down in Central California—and we have a picture that 

can be brought up on the screen, if our folks are ready for that—

but we have a member of the Fish and Wildlife Service who basically was in plain clothes, in a plain vehicle, trespassing on these 

brothers’ property, and would not identify himself, nor would the 

gentleman even come to the fence to have a conversation with the 

land owners. They then called upon the sheriff, because they have 

a trespasser out there. 

And this has been an ongoing problem for the family down there, 

where Fish and Wildlife and others are making decisions about 

their property that is presently being tied up in a hearing process, 

or litigation process—I don’t know where it sits right now. But this 

is like really bad PR for the organization, you know? 

When your marked vehicles show up in a community and you 

hear about these stories and you have people being treated in such 

a fashion—look at that fellow standing there. He won’t even approach the fence. Got his hand in his pocket, his leg cocked there, 

pretty—being actually defiant of the property owner and perhaps 

the sheriff’s deputy who has arrived there. 

Now, is this the kind of attitude or public relations your organization really wants to present to the public, to the agricultural 

community, to the private properties, to the taxpayers? How do you 

view that? 

Mr. ASHE. I don’t know the facts of the case, so I would say, Congressman, if you provide me with the facts I will get you an answer. So all I am looking at is a picture and listening to your characterization of it. But if you get me the facts——

Mr. LAMALFA. Well, I don’t have any reason to make that up. 

Mr. ASHE. I would be happy to come to your office. Well, there 

are many potentials. Is it a law enforcement agent? Is the individual in the field, is he a law enforcement agent? 

Mr. LAMALFA. He is one that has been—on two previous occasions been other agents out there looking for something to do——

Mr. ASHE. Well, if he is a law——

60

Mr. LAMALFA [continuing]. In the agricultural operations. These 

fellows and others run into problems with changing crops or dealing with their—whatever their cropping strategy is going to be, 

someone saying, ‘‘Oh, you can’t do it there now, because we don’t 

think you should be able to use this portion of your property that 

you are making payments and paying taxes on.’’ And so——

Mr. ASHE. But I would just say if he is a law enforcement officer, 

then he is not trespassing. Because under the open fields doctrine——

Mr. LAMALFA. He is not trespassing without a uniform, without 

a badge, in an unmarked vehicle? 

Mr. ASHE. No, he is not. No, sir. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Is this what the founders had in mind 230 years 

ago with private property and a person—basically, he was being 

defiant to the land owner when asked to identify himself. I don’t 

think that was what was in mind. 

So, I will finish, Mr. Chairman. 

May I request of your Agency the background and the paperwork——

Mr. ASHE. Sure. 

Mr. LAMALFA [continuing]. And what is going on with the litigation and all that? 

Mr. ASHE. Absolutely. 

Mr. LAMALFA. I would like to have that and be able to bring it 

in to this Committee and have that——

Mr. ASHE. Absolutely. 

Mr. LAMALFA [continuing]. For the record, because it is very important that these people get this resolved. So I appreciate it. 

Mr. ASHE. Absolutely. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you. 

Mr. ASHE. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Mr. McClintock. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. Mr. Schiff, Ms. Shea-Porter suggested that the morality of the ESA is above reproach. Would you 

comment on the moral aspects of a policy that deliberately destroys 

the livelihoods of thousands and thousands of innocent, hard-working families, based on nothing more than specious claims and highly questionable data? 

Mr. SCHIFF. I think it is well stated that the Endangered Species 

Act can often times be immoral in its application. I mentioned before the question of the delta smelt that Representative Costa was 

focusing on, but also there are plenty of other species. We represent clients now who are challenging the listing of the Utah prairie dog. And these are property owners who have seen their loved 

ones’ graves desecrated by burrowing animals. The airport has 

caved in parts the airplanes can’t use. The city can’t manage its 

parks. And there is no reasonable accommodation that our clients 

have been able to come to with respect to managing the prairie 

dog. 

And there seems to be plenty of examples where, notwithstanding the good intentions of those who enacted the Endangered 

Species Act, there can be pernicious impacts. And yet, the Agency, 

the Fish and Wildlife Service, has shown too often too little consideration for those negative impacts. 

61

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, let’s talk about some of those negative 

impacts and get back to the Central Valley of California and the 

delta smelt. Mr. Ashe says that the Endangered Species Act is compatible with ‘‘robust and sustained economic development.’’ Unemployment in the San Joaquin Valley is reaching 40 percent in some 

communities because of the pumping restrictions caused by the 

delta smelt findings. We are looking at another tough water year. 

On July 15th the Wall Street Journal pointed out that ‘‘more 

smelt are captured by biologists conducting population surveys 

each year than are trapped by pumps.’’ In fact, Federal and State 

biologists killed 2,316 endangered smelts in 2011—2,316. The 

pumping took 211. 

Mr. Ashe, is it true that your biologists have the authority to actually take more delta smelt than the water projects that meet the 

needs of millions of people? 

Mr. ASHE. Congressman, the number of smelt that are taken by 

the pumps is an index. So what they are measuring are ones that 

are actually observed, captured, on the screens. And so they use 

that as an index. But the number that are killed in the pumps is 

much larger than the number they are actually measured on the 

screen. That is just an index. And so they use that as a way—so 

we—but our biologists and State biologists do surveys for delta 

smelt. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I hate to contradict you, but this is part of the 

incidental take statement. 

Mr. ASHE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, do you understand the frustration of the 

folks throughout my region when they see a biologist killing 2,300 

endangered smelt, the pumps taking 211, and your turning off the 

water for farms that mean thousands and thousands of jobs and affect the economy of a region of hundreds of thousands of families? 

Do you understand the frustration of families in my region that 

are looking at your critical habitat designation which is essentially 

affecting the entire Sierra Nevadas with the implication that has 

to what remains of their already devastated economy? 

The economy is already devastated by previous policies of this 

nature, when your Agency itself admits that there is—that human 

activity is not the principal cause of the decline of these populations. Do you understand that? 

Mr. ASHE. I understand the frustration, Congressman. I 

don’t——

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Do you care, I guess is the question, about 

these thousands of real families? 

Mr. ASHE. I would certainly——

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. That are now out of work because of the policies that you are pursuing. 

We will pursue this later. I think you are going to be coming out 

to a—or your people are going to be coming out to a meeting where 

they are going to hear directly from these folks. 

Mr. Ramey, one final question. In the Klamath they are trying 

to tear down four perfectly good hydroelectric dams because of 

what they see as a catastrophic decline of the salmon populations 

on the Klamath. When I went up there I said, ‘‘Well, how many are 

62

left?’’ ‘‘Oh, just a few hundred,’’ they said. I said, ‘‘Well, why doesn’t 

somebody build a fish hatchery?’’

They tell me, ‘‘There is a fish hatchery, the Iron Gate Fish 

Hatchery at the Iron Gate Dam. It produces 5 million salmon 

smelts a year, 17,000 return as fully grown adults to spawn every 

year, but they don’t let us include them in the population counts.’’ 

And then, to add insult to insanity, when they tear down the dams, 

the Iron Gate Fish Hatchery goes with it. Is there any rational, scientific basis for such a policy? 

Dr. RAMEY. Not so long as they interbreed. But let me go back 

to this delta smelt thing. We published a paper in 2011 where the 

data were public, we tested the hypotheses of various threats 

against the delta smelt, and found that the pumping could be attributed to about 10 percent mortality of the population. But the 

bulk of the problem—and this came out in the NAS report—tends 

to be relative to the ammonia put in to the system by the Sacramento Wastewater Treatment Plant. So while we are regulating 

on the basis of pumps under this flawed biological opinion, this 

problem with food chain collapse continues. 

And so, this came about as a third-party independent review. 

And there is a massive collateral damage that can happen with 

some of these decisions, like you point out with the economic part. 

But let me just say it is the little guy that doesn’t have the resources to litigate this that is severely affected. And there is no appeals process for some of these opinions, so——

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I am sorry I wasn’t watching the clock 

myself. I apologize. 

Mr. Stewart, you are the representative of those prairie dogs that 

were just mentioned. 

Mr. STEWART. I am, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. They are in your district? 

Mr. STEWART. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. You are recognized for questions. 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding 

this hearing. Thank you to the witnesses. These are important 

issues for the American people, and we appreciate your expertise. 

These are emotional issues, as I am sure has been demonstrated 

this morning. And I think we have seen adequate conversation 

about why there is so much frustration on the part of the American 

people. 

And Mr. Chairman and Mr. Schiff, you mentioned the Utah prairie dog, and I would like to come back to talk about that in just 

a moment. 

But before I do, Mr. Ashe, a tough morning for you, I am supposing. Thank you for being here. Thank you for the effort you 

made yesterday to reach out to me in my office. And I am supposing you are doing the same thing with other offices on both the 

Congress and the Senate side. I think that is a smart thing to do. 

I appreciate that you recognize that relationships can be effective 

in solving some of these problems. And, honestly, I wish the Administration in general had been more effective of that, and I hope 

that they will maybe make a renewed effort in that. And I wanted 

to thank you again for beginning that process. 

63

If I could now, coming to an issue which is—as we discussed yesterday, Mr. Ashe—important to me in my district, and frankly, it 

should be important to the people in other locations as well, because of the precedent it sets, and that is talking about the prairie 

dogs in Iron and Garfield Counties. And the frustration we have 

there is this. Simply put, it is that you have an endangered species, 

which we have been effective at monitoring and nurturing and assisting that species, to the point where there are many of them 

now. But the problem is we can only count those on Federal lands, 

and we don’t count those on private lands. 

And we had a chance to talk with Ms. Jewell, Secretary Jewell, 

on July 17th, which was just a few weeks ago. And I asked her this 

question. And she said—and I would like to quote her comment, 

and then, Mr. Ashe, ask you to respond to that and get your 

thoughts, if you could, about this frustration on counting these endangered species on private lands. She says, ‘‘My understanding is 

that when we do Endangered Species Act assessments we count all 

animals on private and public lands, because we may have many 

endangered species that are on private land.’’ Seems like a reasonable approach. 

Mr. Ashe, do you share that opinion? And, again, I would appreciate your comments on that, if you could. 

Mr. ASHE. I think the Secretary predicated her remarks by saying she wasn’t directly familiar with that. But I think—as we 

talked about yesterday, the recovery plan for the Utah prairie dog 

focuses on public lands. And so, because of the way the recovery 

plan is drafted, for the purposes of recovery, there is only consideration of the prairie dogs that are on public land. And so that is, 

in fact, the case. 

Mr. STEWART. And understanding that, as you said, the case, 

does that make sense to you, though? I mean doesn’t it seem reasonable that we would—if a species is endangered, that we would 

want to know how many there are in entirety, not how many there 

are in locations for which isn’t ideal for them—and to their choosing, they would prefer to inhabit private lands. 

Mr. ASHE. Well, and I want to thank you for the conversation 

yesterday. I didn’t participate in the development of the recovery 

plan, but I think that when they drafted—as I understand, when 

they drafted the recovery plan, there weren’t a lot of prairie dogs 

on private land, and there were a lot of practices in place that were 

persecuting prairie dogs on private land. And so they did not anticipate that private lands would play a significant role in recovery. 

Can we look at that again in the context of today and what we 

know today? Yes, I think we can. 

Mr. STEWART. OK. Thank you, sir. And I have to say, just in the 

few seconds I have left, I was encouraged after our meeting yesterday. You gave us some names of individuals that you thought could 

be helpful to us. We have reached out to those individuals already. 

They seemed to be anticipating our phone call. And I am more optimistic than I have been in quite a while that we are going to be 

able to work with your Agency to resolve this and not, as we said 

yesterday, not in 30 years and $100 million later, but in a very 

short period of time. And I thank you, sir, for your willingness to 

64

work with us on that, and I look forward to doing so. And with 

that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Mr. Mullin? 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is for Director Ashe. Director Ashe, I understand that you recently have indicated that you will be moving forward with processing the proposed 

oil and gas Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurance, 

CCAA, to conserve the lesser prairie chicken in five affected States, 

which includes my home State, Oklahoma. I view the CCAA as 

critical to protect the species through voluntary agreements with 

the industry, and to provide the basis for preventing a listing. 

Can I have your agreement or your commitment today that you 

will expedite the process for the range-wide plans for the oil and 

gas CCAA? 

Mr. ASHE. Thank you, Congressman. We met with the oil and 

gas industry and our State partners last weekend at the Western 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. The industry has agreed 

to pay the cost associated with the environmental review and provide the support that is going to be necessary to do that. We told 

them we would work with them toward an objective of having a 

CCAA approved by December. That is an optimistic scenario, it involves some optimistic assumptions about NEPA compliance, but 

we agreed to work toward that objective. 

Mr. MULLIN. We continue to see goals set when we would like 

to see something done, and it seems like we are never able to reach 

it. I would rather see something that is realistic, something that 

we can plan on. 

As a business owner, it is really hard to plan projects when you 

have a target date and you assume—in the private world, when 

you give someone a finish date, that means you have to hit it, or 

there are penalties. In this world, it is up for debate. And typically, 

it doesn’t happen. Well, what happens in the private world is it 

holds us back. And if you don’t think you can hit December, could 

you give me a realistic time? Because assumptions up here really 

mean nothing. 

Mr. ASHE. Again, Congressman, what I can tell you is we told 

them that we would do everything we can do to meet their target 

date. Their target date is December. And we told them we would 

do everything that we can do to meet that target date, and we will 

do that. 

Mr. MULLIN. What is the Agency’s target date? 

Mr. ASHE. We don’t have a target date. We have committed to 

working with them to do everything possible we can do to meet 

their date. 

Mr. MULLIN. The Oklahoma delegation recently sent you a letter 

on the topic of the American burying beetle, which I call the dung 

beetle, because in my State or in my pastures, where you can find 

a dry patty, you can kick it over and you can find this beetle that, 

honestly, we used to throw at each other as kids. As we continue 

to have frustration about delays on the target date for the draft for 

the general conservation plan, we are asking you to put forward 

some type of internal guidance that may be used by the industry 

allowing the projects to continue during the final weeks of the beeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:53 Jan 16, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 Y:\00FULL~1\00AU01\8-1-13~1\82446.TXT MARK
65

tle’s active season. As these delays are troublesome to our economy 

and the progress in our State. 

I would like to also ask you if you would update the recovery 

plan for delisting the beetle. And if there is a problem with that, 

you can come to my property and you can do a study on finding 

out if this thing is really endangered or not. 

Ultimately, the ability to delist the beetle is important to my 

State and the industry. I have experienced the dung beetle in my 

own private sector life and in my business, and I have seen the 

hurdles firsthand surrounding this beetle’s listing. It is extremely 

costly to our industry, and it is almost a joke. We were all surprised when this thing got listed. I never knew there was such a 

thing as them being endangered, and they have held up projects 

after projects after projects. 

And here, in this conference, and—with, ultimately, the White 

House’s own plan, they say that they are wanting to create jobs. 

The way to create jobs would be delisting it. Can you give me an 

update on that? 

Mr. ASHE. We have a very good record of working with the industry on the American burying beetle. Just this past year we worked 

with TransCanada to work on the approval of the southern leg of 

the Keystone Pipeline, going from Cushing, Oklahoma to the Gulf 

Coast, and we——

Mr. MULLIN. Right through my district. 

Mr. ASHE. We produced a habitat conservation plan in 6 months, 

a record time, and we did that by working with the industry, sitting down with them face-to-face, working on these issues, what 

can they do to conserve the beetle. So I think——

Mr. MULLIN. But where are we at getting it delisted? I mean all 

the numbers show this beetle has done really well. 

Mr. ASHE. As regards to the status, Congressman, I am not familiar with the status and where we are with recovery. I would be 

happy to come meet with you and bring our experts and talk about 

that. 

Mr. MULLIN. Please do. Thank you. Thank you for your time. 

Mr. ASHE. Thank you, sir. 

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

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. All right. I appreciate your willingness 

to be here. I have three last questions for you. Mr. Ashe, you are 

going to get two of them anyway, so let me start with the first one. 

Last year this Committee was informed about a college student 

who was doing biological surveys under Fish and Wildlife Service 

Section X recovery permits. And it had in 1994 falsely reported seeing an endangered species on his survey area. This was in California. Two other scientists were aware of the false report, but did 

not immediately report it, and the student later said that this was 

all a joke. But as a result of the joke, a nearby gravel operation 

was told it had to modify its operation to avoid a taking for this 

fabricated species. 

I am troubled that the research permit under which the survey 

was conducted was not revoked, that the company overseeing the 

work, Mad River Biologists, were allowed to continue doing these 

surveys and other population surveys, despite the falsified science. 

66

Why has the Fish and Wildlife Service, and under your management, allowed this to continue? 

Mr. ASHE. I am going to have to get back with you for the record 

with the answer to that question, Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. Got a timeframe for that return? How soon can you 

get back with me on that one? 

Mr. ASHE. I can get back with you within a week. 

Mr. BISHOP. Good. I will time you. 

For all of you, this can simply be a yes/no answer. I am going 

to go down the line. Would you agree that, in this day and age of 

the Internet, it is both possible and preferable that actual data be 

used for ESA decisions that affect both species and people, and 

should be available for everyone to see online on the Internet? 

I’ll start with you, Mr. Schiff. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Ashe? 

Mr. ASHE. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. Mr. McMullen? 

Mr. MCMULLEN. Yes, absolutely. 

Mr. BISHOP. Dr. Ramey? 

Dr. RAMEY. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. That was a simple-enough one. I am going to give 

the last attempt, Mr. Ashe. I mentioned the letter that you sent to 

the State of Utah on our sage-grouse issue. Can I get the assurance 

that you will at least look at those three issues I recommended that 

have questionable data that was given to them on tall structures, 

buffers, and disturbance limits? 

Mr. ASHE. Yes, I will look at it. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. This letter had an amazingly negative 

impact in trying to move us forward. So I hope the Fish and Wildlife Service will look at that significantly. 

Final one. The answer to Chairman Hastings’ letter as to the Inspector General’s report which is a very serious consideration, I 

would ask you to, in all deliberate speed, respond to that quickly. 

This Committee needs to know the answers to that. That is a significant issue. I want to give you some time to actually prepare 

that, obviously. 

Mr. ASHE. Thank you. 

Mr. BISHOP. But this Committee needs to have that data in 

terms of days, not in terms of months. So I appreciate that. 

With that, I want to thank all of you. Many of you have traveled 

great distances to be here. We have appreciated you coming and 

giving your testimony. On behalf of the Committee there may be 

some other questions that will be submitted by either side in writing. If they do, we would ask you to respond to them in writing in 

a relatively quick timeframe. 

And if there is nothing else, then this particular hearing—with 

our appreciation for you coming here and giving the testimony—

stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:27 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

Æ