U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

31–426 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

S. HRG. 115–351 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON A DISCUSSION DRAFT 

BILL, S. l, THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 

AMENDMENTS OF 2018 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 17, 2018 

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

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, 

Ranking Member 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

RICHARD M. RUSSELL, Majority Staff Director 

MARY FRANCES REPKO, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JULY 17, 2018 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 1 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 3 

WITNESSES 

Mead, Hon. Matt, Governor, State of Wyoming .................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Broscheid, Bob, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife ........................................ 343 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 345 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Barrasso ....................................................................................... 351 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 353 

Strickler, Matthew J., Secretary of Natural Resources, Commonwealth of 

Virginia ................................................................................................................. 355 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 357 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Barrasso ....................................................................................... 361 

Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 362 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Text of The Endangered Species Act Amendments of 2018, Section-by-Section 

Analysis ................................................................................................................. 378 

Letter to Senators Barrasso and Carper from David Y. Ige, Governor, State 

of Hawaii, July 19, 2018 ...................................................................................... 387 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON A DISCUSSION 

DRAFT BILL, S. l, THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2018 

TUESDAY, JULY 17, 2018 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:50 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Capito, Wicker, Fischer, 

Rounds, Ernst, Sullivan, Cardin, Merkley, Gillibrand, Booker, Markey, Duckworth, and Van Hollen. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Good morning. I call this hearing to order. 

Today we will consider the Endangered Species Act Amendments 

of 2018, and I would like this discussion draft to serve as the foundation for a bipartisan effort to modernize the Endangered Species 

Act. If we work together—Republican and Democrat—we can ensure that this important law fulfills the full conservation potential 

and works better for species, as well as for people. 

Congress last reauthorized the Endangered Species Act with 

amendments of substance in 1988, 30 years ago. Even the U.S. 

Constitution has been amended more recently than the Endangered Species Act. 

Stakeholders are making it clear that the Endangered Species 

Act can be improved. A major goal of the Endangered Species Act 

is the recovery of species to the point that protection under the 

statute is no longer necessary. 

Since the ESA was signed into law, only 54 out of 2,393 species 

listed in the U.S. and foreign countries have been delisted because 

they have recovered. That is less than 3 percent. 

Now, as a doctor, if I admit 100 patients to the hospital and only 

3 recover enough under my treatment to be discharged, Governor, 

I would deserve to lose my medical license with numbers like that. 

When it comes to the Endangered Species Act, the status quo is 

not good enough. We must do more than just list species and leave 

them on life support. But that is what we are doing now. We need 

to see species recovered. 

In June 2015 as then-chairman of the Western Governors Association, Wyoming Governor Matt Mead took on the challenge of 

2 

identifying opportunities to modernize the Endangered Species Act. 

Now the Western Governors Association represents Governors of 19 

western States and three U.S. territories in the Pacific. He 

launched the GWA’s Species Conservation and Endangered Species 

Act Initiative. 

Three years later Governor Mead’s groundbreaking initiative has 

facilitated a bipartisan dialogue of stakeholders from across the political spectrum. They have resulted in three annual reports, the 

adoption of a bipartisan Western Governors Association Policy Resolution, and the adoption of bipartisan Western Governors Association policy recommendations. 

This month I released a discussion draft, the Endangered Species 

Act Amendments of 2018, and it is based on the Western Governors Association’s principles and policies. Earlier this year I received a supportive letter from the GWA signed by its chair and 

its vice chair, Republican Governor Daugaard of South Dakota and 

Democratic Governor Ige of Hawaii. It commended our efforts to 

address ‘‘this polarizing topic in an inclusive, thoughtful manner.’’ 

It noted, ‘‘The proposed bill reflects this fact and offers meaningful bipartisan solutions to challenging species conservation issues.’’ 

It continued, ‘‘The proposed bill is generally consistent with the 

Western Governors Association recommendations, and the Western 

Governors Association offers its support for the portions of the bill 

that are consistent with existing Western Governors policy.’’ 

The discussion draft was also shaped by input from two EPW 

Committee hearings last year. We heard from a diverse bipartisan 

group of witnesses and panelists, including former Democrat Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal, and Fish and Wildlife directors 

from across the country. Each of these witnesses and panelists acknowledged that the Endangered Species Act could work better. 

Many believe the foundation established by the Western Governors 

Association was a good starting point for modernizing the Act. 

The discussion draft elevates the role of States in partnering 

with the Federal Government to implement the Endangered Species Act. It affords States the opportunity to lead wildlife conservation efforts, including through the establishment of recovery teams 

for listed species, and developing and implementing recovery plans. 

It provides for increased regulatory certainty so stakeholders are 

incentivized to enter into voluntary conservation and recovery activities. It increases transparency. It codifies a system for 

prioritizing species listing petitions so limited resources flow to the 

species most in need. 

Over the 45-year life of the Endangered Species Act, the capacity 

of State wildlife agencies has grown significantly. According to the 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, States now spend over 

$5.6 billion on conservation and employ approximately 240,000 people and volunteers. Of that number, 50,000 are employees, including over 11,000 degreed wildlife biologists, over 10,000 wildlife law 

enforcement officers, and 6,000 employees with advanced education 

degrees. 

Combined, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service employ only 11,661 people, so the substantial resources of the States are not located in Washington, DC. 

3 

These State agencies are in the field every day working to protect 

wildlife. 

The draft bill has received broad support from conservation and 

stakeholder groups alike. Over 100 organizations have already 

written to the Committee to express their support of this effort, so 

I look forward to working with the members of this Committee and 

the larger stakeholder community to find a bipartisan pathway to 

meaningful modernization of the Endangered Species Act based on 

the Western Governors Association’s recommendations. 

I now turn to Ranking Member Carper for his statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

To our lead off witness, Governor, great to see you. Welcome. 

Thank you for your leadership in Wyoming and among our Nation’s 

Governors. 

As a recovering Governor, I recognize the critical and sometimes 

challenging role that States play in implementing our Federal 

laws. The Endangered Species Act, one of our Nation’s most popular environmental protection statutes, is one example of just such 

a law. 

I also appreciate the ability of our Governors to come together 

with stakeholders and solve difficult issues on the ground. 

Governor Mead, I understand from colleagues that you spearheaded—and the Chairman has alluded to this—a bipartisan 3- 

year process through the Western Governors Association to discuss 

the improvements to the Endangered Species Act, and I commend 

you for doing so. I think we commend you for doing so. 

I very much look forward to hearing from you and our other witnesses today on what we all believe is an important topic. But I 

have to be honest, as well. I am not fully convinced that a similar 

process is possible right now in Washington, DC. Our colleagues in 

this Congress have put forward and advanced a myriad of legislative proposals to weaken, and in some cases, undermine the Endangered Species Act. The current Administration has repealed 

policies from the previous Administration that would have helped 

endangered species to recover, and I am told that the Department 

of Interior plans to release new regulations this week that could 

harm our Nation’s most imperiled species. 

Further, the draft legislation we are considering today includes 

provisions that go beyond the legislative recommendations proposed by the Western Governors Association last year. Even the 

text that is based on the WGA’s recommendations contains problematic details. To my knowledge, none of the Democratic Governors who supported that resolution can endorse this draft, at 

least not as it is currently written. 

I hasten to add that this process seems to be skipping another 

important step, and that is discussing and incorporating the views 

of the other 31 States. For example, my home State of Delaware 

has a compelling story to tell. The Endangered Species Act has successfully recovered a number of species in our State recently, including the Delmarva fox squirrel and the bald eagle. 

4 

Delaware is proud to host and help recover threatened species 

like the red knot, a tiny little bird that flies all the way from the 

North Pole down to Brazil and stops for lunch one place along the 

way, Delaware, and keeps on going. Another bird called the piping 

plover, we have helped that one recover, too. People travel from all 

over the world, far and near, to view these special birds from our 

beaches along the Atlantic Ocean and along the Delaware Bay. In 

fact, I joined some of the birders just a couple months ago at our 

beloved wildlife refuges. We are blessed with two of those. 

The First State also enjoys a wonderful working relationship 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Our region is working with 

landowners, industry partners, and nonprofit organizations to successfully prevent new listings. 

Now, let me just say, no law is perfect. I know that, and I think 

we all know that. But in Delaware’s experience, changes to the Endangered Species Act have not been a prerequisite for the law to 

work. I continue to believe that our State, along with the Service 

and all States, could do exponentially more to recover species and 

prevent new listings with additional resources. 

The Western Governors Association seems to agree with this assessment. I also remember that all of our witnesses at previous endangered species hearings agreed that funding is a serious challenge. Yet, in recent years, Congress has underfunded the Endangered Species Act, and the draft legislation that we are holding this 

hearing on today does not provide a meaningful funding solution 

for species conservation. 

Instead, the legislation proposes several changes to the Act that 

cause—for me—some real concerns. For one, it creates a new definition for how the Fish and Wildlife Service should consider scientific information. This change could actually prevent the best 

available science from guiding species management, especially in 

an Administration that consistently denies and undermines 

science. 

It also includes a judicial review prohibition that limits the 

public’s opportunity to challenge delisting decisions that may not 

be supported by the best available science or are otherwise not 

fully compliant with the law. 

Having said all that, I want to again acknowledge the thoughtfulness that went into the Western Governors Endangered Species 

Act Initiative. Having said that, I am having a hard time understanding how this legislation, in particular, will better recover species or better serve the American people. 

Perhaps this hearing will serve to further my understanding, or 

perhaps it will cause us to go back to the drawing board and draw 

on the expertise and the insight of some of those other 31 States 

whose input apparently has not been sought when the legislation 

before us was being crafted. If we do that, it may enable our Committee to come together, as we have on several occasions in this 

Congress, in working to truly conserve our Nation’s treasured wildlife for future generations. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, Governor, welcome. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you very much, Senator Carper. 

5 

Today we are going to hear from two panels. Each member of the 

Committee has an option to either ask one 5-minute round from either panel or a 3-minute round from each panel, but we are going 

to follow this procedure to ensure that we complete the hearing by 

noon because we have a couple of roll call votes scheduled for later 

this morning, and we want to be able to cast those votes. 

On the first panel we will soon hear from Matt Mead, Governor 

of Wyoming, and on the second panel we will hear from Bob 

Broscheid, the Director of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife, and 

Matt Strickler, who is the Secretary of Natural Resources, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia. 

I want to remind the witnesses your full testimony will be made 

part of the official hearing record. 

I would like to take a moment now to introduce Wyoming Governor Matt Mead, who has been serving as Governor since January 

2011. 

Born and raised in Jackson, Wyoming, he graduated law school 

from the University of Wyoming. Since then, he has engaged in the 

private practice of law, as well as worked as a prosecutor and as 

a United States Attorney. 

Governor Mead has served in the past as Chair and also Vice 

Chair of the National Governors Association’s Natural Resources 

Committee. He also worked as the Co-Chair of the State and Federal Sage-Grouse Task Force. From 2015 to 2016 he served as 

Chairman of the Western Governors Association, where, as I mentioned before, he led the Species Conservation and Endangered 

Species Act Initiative. That initiative serves as the inspiration of 

the discussion draft that we are examining today. 

Governor Mead also has a farm and ranch operation in southeast 

Wyoming, and I hope that Governor Mead will tell us about his experience in Wyoming and within the Western Governors Association, balancing the interests of citizens while efficiently conserving 

and effectively conserving wildlife. 

Governor Mead, it is an honor to welcome you as a witness before the Environment and Public Works Committee. Thank you for 

traveling to Washington to be with us today. I know Frontier Days 

is coming to Cheyenne, and I know you are going to be very busy 

over the next week and a half at home, but I am so grateful you 

take time to be with us today. 

Governor, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MATT MEAD, 

GOVERNOR, STATE OF WYOMING 

Mr. MEAD. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and 

Ranking Member Carper, I hope you give me your notes on how to 

recover from the Governor’s [unclear], but it is an honor for me to 

be Governor of Wyoming. 

Senator CARPER. I am still working on those notes. 

Mr. MEAD. Thank you, sir. 

Senator CARPER. One of my favorite things as Governor—this 

should not take away your time—was coming and testifying before 

Congress when I was chairman of the NGI. I just loved it, and I 

hope you enjoy it as well. Thank you. 

Mr. MEAD. I do. 

6 

And to all the members of the Committee, thank you for the 

privilege and the opportunity to be with you this morning and the 

opportunity to speak about the Endangered Species Act amendments and the discussion draft. 

To start out, I want to share with you, I have witnessed some 

of the greatest successes of the Endangered Species Act in 1987 on 

a ranch near Meeteetse, Wyoming. Biologists removed from the 

wild the last 18 black-footed ferrets in the world. Before that, they 

were believed to have been extinct. Today, due to collaborative efforts among multiple partners, ferrets have been reintroduced to 

eight States, as well as Canada and Mexico. 

Another example, when listed as threatened in 1975, biologists 

estimated as few as 136 grizzly bears remained in a few isolated 

areas of Yellowstone National Park within the Greater Yellowstone 

Ecosystem. Upon delisting in 2017, conservative estimates show 

that more than 700 bears inhabit an area the size of New Jersey, 

Delaware, and Connecticut combined, and continue moving into 

areas where people have not seen them in generations. These success stories are a testament to the ESA’s ability to prevent extinction. 

The ESA provided part of the incentive for folks to work together 

to keep the greater sage-grouse from being listed. Wyoming 

brought together diverse interested groups to develop a scientifically based and common sense strategy for preserving the bird. 

Wyoming’s plan served as a model for other western States and 

Federal agencies. Preventing the need to list sage-grouse is a success story. 

I have also witnessed some of the ESA’s greatest failings. It took 

five lawsuits and 15 years to delist a recovered gray wolf population in Wyoming. Grizzly bears are embroiled in litigation for the 

second time. Canadian lynx were listed more than 18 years ago 

and still have no discernible path to recovery. In fact, nearly 30 

percent of all listed species have no recovery plan, and litigation 

often dictates U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service priorities and workload. 

The ESA hasn’t been substantially amended since 1988, so now 

it is time, in my view, to have this discussion, and again, I so appreciate the opportunity. As evidence that this is the time to have 

this discussion, there are currently bills before Congress to prevent 

listing greater sage-grouse and lesser prairie-chickens for 10 years. 

Before this, there were bills proposing to delist gray wolves in part 

of the country and to prevent judicial review of already delisted 

species. 

I supported legislation to delist gray wolves in Wyoming because 

it appeared at the time the only viable option, and I will continue 

to support efforts to protect gray wolf delisting until we can address the root of the problems. 

But I have to frankly say that that process of Congress, by popular vote, making the decisions on individual species is not the best 

way to go. Addressing root problems would obviate the need for 

Congress to intervene with respect to individual species. That 

would be better legislation, better policy, and better for wildlife. 

The Chairman’s discussion draft offers a real bipartisan—which 

is so critical—way to correct deficiencies in the ESA implementaVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:01 Oct 24, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\31426.TXT SONYA
7 

tion, while maintaining science based decisionmaking. As was said, 

this was my initiative at Western Governors, and I just want to 

give a little more context on that. 

That was open to everybody. We extended an open invitation to 

anyone interested in species conservation and endangered species 

issues to engage in meaningful dialogue. For 3 years the initiative 

included 11 work sessions, 8 Webinars, several surveys, questionnaires, two reports outlining opportunities for ESA improvement. 

To ensure transparency, work sessions and Webinars were recorded 

and posted on YouTube. This process helped inform the Western 

Governors, and in 2016 and again in 2017, Western Governors 

adopted bipartisan policy resolutions that included specific recommendations for improving the ESA and species conservation. 

A number of WGA recommendations are reflected in this discussion draft bill. A couple of them—when Congress adopted the ESA 

in 1973, it did not require the Fish and Wildlife Service to act on 

petitions by a date certain. In 1978 Congress amended the ESA, 

giving the Fish and Wildlife Service 2 years to make a final determination on a proposed rulemaking. If the Fish and Wildlife Service failed to act within those 2 years, it had to withdraw. 

In 1982, after complaints that listing decisions were being delayed, Congress acted, adding the current requirement that the 

Fish and Wildlife Service act on a substantial 90-day finding within 12 months of the date received. Congress did not choose the 12- 

month deadline for any specific scientific reason; it was simply an 

arbitrary timeline meant to spur action on potential species listings. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service receives hundreds of petitions to 

list species at a time, but it does not have the resources to meet 

the deadlines. The resulting litigation allows courts, not scientists, 

to prioritize agency workloads and frequently impedes local species 

conservation efforts that can take years to develop and implement. 

After 36 years of the status quo, this discussion draft addresses 

this source of conflict in a scientifically based, practical way by 

codifying the framework of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s National 

Listing Work Plan. This Work Plan has been praised by environmental groups and conservation groups, but despite its broad support, the National Listing Work Plan extends the current statutory 

deadline, and if a court took issue with this, we would fully expect 

deadline driven litigation to rise again. 

This discussion draft also—we believe in Western Governors—enhances the roles of States in several ways. It contemplates States’ 

leading recovery teams, developing and implementing recovery 

plans, consulting with Federal agencies in a meaningful way on all 

aspects of ESA implementation. 

Of course, this is a start, and we believe it is a very important 

start. We understand people will have concerns. One of the concerns that I have heard is critics of enhancing the role of States 

and ESA generally distrust the States’ ability to manage wildlife. 

However, Congress did not adopt the ESA because it distrusted the 

States’ ability to manage wildlife. To the contrary, Congress and 

other supporters of the ESA recognized the important role States 

play in wildlife management. For example, during its adoption, 

New York Representative James Grover, speaking in favor of the 

8 

ESA, argued, ‘‘The greater bulk of the enforcement capability concerning endangered species lies in the hands of the State fish and 

game agencies, not the Federal Government.’’ 

The House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries Report 

on the ESA also explained the important role States would play, 

stating, ‘‘The States are far better equipped to handle the problems 

of day to day management and enforcement of laws and regulations 

for the protection of endangered species than is the Federal Government.’’ 

There are numerous examples about the importance Congress 

recognized States would play. Unfortunately, much of Congress’s 

vision never materialized due to inadequate Fish and Wildlife Service funding for State recovery efforts. 

Through amendment, the ESA can give back State incentives 

that Congress originally envisioned. The provisions of this discussion draft take a needed step in returning the ESA to its original 

vision that garnered near unanimous support from Congress when 

passed. 

In conclusion, first, I would note this discussion draft does not 

erode authority of the Secretary of Interior or Secretary of Commerce. Every time the discussion draft offers a greater role to 

States, the Secretary retains final decisionmaking authority. 

Second, the draft does not remove science from decisionmaking. 

On the contrary, decisions that list, up-list, down-list, delist, or decline to list must be based on the best scientific or commercial 

data. 

This discussion draft stems from a State led, bipartisan effort 

conducted over several years. Environmental, sportsmen, ag, and 

energy interests all have commended the WGA process. I would 

also note that after we got the process through the Western Governors, I took it to the National Governors Association, and the National Governors Association—and I don’t want to overstate this— 

broadly adopted many of the policies of the WGA. It is not as extensive, and I want to be careful there, but the NGA has also taken 

a look at this. 

So, this draft represents a reasonable way to elevate the WGA 

process into a national dialogue. As said by Mr. Chairman, the 

WGA submitted a letter of support for the provisions of this bill 

that are consistent with WGA policy. 

So now we have an opportunity to improve the Endangered Species Act for wildlife and for people. We can encourage innovative 

conservation practices that obviate the need to list species. We can 

facilitate faster and more cost effective species recovery. We can 

improve transparency, reduce litigation, and ensure that science 

dictates species management decisions, not Congress or the courts. 

Perhaps most importantly, we can see the ESA reauthorized for the 

first time in a generation. 

Thank you again very much for the opportunity, and I appreciate 

the warm welcome this morning. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mead follows:] 

9 


31426.001
10 


31426.002
11 


31426.003
12 


31426.004
13 


31426.005
14 


31426.006
15 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you very much, Governor. I will 

tell you there are a number of interns from my office who are here 

from Wyoming, a number from Casper, and they were delighted to 

hear your testimony, so people are listening in the room, and people from Wyoming are going to be calling their parents very shortly 

to say what a great job you did. Thank you very much. I appreciate 

it, Governor. 

Mr. MEAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. A couple of questions, then we will go back 

and forth around the panel. 

Over the last several decades there have been a series of efforts 

to amend the Endangered Species Act. They weren’t successful for 

a variety of reasons, so can you kind of distinguish for this Committee the difference between past efforts to amend the Endangered Species Act and what the Western Governors Association is 

doing? Do you think the discussion draft reflects the policy, principles, and recommendations kind of in a bipartisan way? 

Mr. MEAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is different than 

past efforts. There is no question, when I announced this was going 

to be my initiative, I immediately got pushback, saying this is too 

tough an issue. To Senator Carper’s comments, it is a tough time 

to get this through Congress. I get that. But this is an important 

enough issue, and it is an exciting enough issue. The opportunity 

in Wyoming and across the Nation to address wildlife issues, I 

think we have an enthusiastic group of Governors and citizens that 

are ready to move forward. 

In 1998 Senator Kempthorne got moving on this as an individual 

Senator. His efforts were killed by Senator Lott. In 2005 California 

Representative Pombo got some improvements through the House, 

and it died in the Senate. 

But this effort began at the State level. It involved local input; 

it has been transparent. We have included ranchers; we have included wonderful groups that have helped us out, like The Nature 

Conservancy and Audubon. We have had, as I said, not only WGA 

involvement, but NGA involvement. And we have learned a lot. We 

have over 40 years of knowledge. 

So, this is the time, and I think it is different because it has been 

bipartisan; it has been an effort by Republican and Democratic 

Governors, and Independent, as well. 

As we see now Congress taking up individual species to decide 

whether they remain listed or delisted, it also shows that it is the 

time. And there is good news out there, Mr. Chairman. What we 

have done in Wyoming and in the West with regard to sage-grouse 

shows that voluntary efforts can go a long way to preventing a species from being delisted. 

I acknowledge it is difficult, but I also acknowledge that we have 

gotten it through Western Governors; we have addressed it with 

National Governors. This can be and should be a bipartisan effort. 

Senator BARRASSO. Can you explain a little bit more about why 

States should be a more equal partner with the Federal Government in implementing the Endangered Species Act? We showed the 

chart about just how involved States are in terms of the number 

of personnel and the commitment of resources, because things really have changed. 

16 

Mr. MEAD. Mr. Chairman, I had not seen that chart until it was 

held up this morning. I think that is very telling in terms of the 

amount of expertise and the money. Just on grizzly bears, for example, the State of Wyoming spent approximately $50 million in 

the recovery of grizzly bears. That is one State on one species. 

There is no question, looking at your chart and otherwise, from my 

knowledge working in Wyoming as Governor, States have not only 

put in resources, but they have a great amount of expertise. 

Also, I would think it is really important to point out States care 

about endangered species. It is not only a quality of life issue. Why 

do we live in our States? This species, that species. But it also is 

an economic driver particularly, I know, in the State of Wyoming 

for tourism. It is very important. We have a trust responsibility 

with regard to wildlife. We care about our habitat. 

I would also point out that to the extent there is a concern that 

States are not the one to lead this, I just think the expertise and 

the money, and over the 40 years, I think that States have become 

much more engaged. In fact, in my view, States are the leaders in 

terms of species conservation. 

Senator BARRASSO. It does seem that too frequently, in terms of 

trying to promulgate a rule for delisting a species under the Endangered Species Act, that it gets derailed by litigation, and we 

have seen that happen in Wyoming. Under this discussion draft, a 

decision by the Secretary of Interior to delist a species is not then 

subject to judicial review until the expiration of a 5-year monitoring period. 

Could you talk a little bit about this cooling off period, why it is 

important and how we respond to those who claim that delaying 

judicial review could have an impact on the delisted species? 

Mr. MEAD. I think that is really an important point, Mr. Chairman, because I think, on the one hand, if you don’t have that opportunity, as you said, a cooling off period, I think you are going 

to lose local support, and I think you are going to lose voluntary 

efforts. People want to engage in this. On the sage-grouse, oil and 

gas companies and the ranchers, they were very excited about having a plan to go forward. But they also needed to know that there 

was going to be fruit at the end; that if they do their work, there 

was going to be a reward. And with the amount of lawsuits that 

are out there, it hurts the opportunity to have a decent management plan. 

I would also point out, as you know, in the working draft, that 

in that cooling off period, if something, you know, whether it is a 

weather condition or something else, there is still an opportunity 

for the Secretary to have an emergency listing. So, you won’t fall 

off a cliff, in other words, if something unanticipated happens. 

But I think if you want to build that local support, if you want 

to have voluntary efforts, if you want to get away from this notion, 

that is unfortunate but is out there, that finding endangered species in your State or on your land is bad news story, and you want 

to turn it into good news story, you have to show the voluntary efforts, and the cooperative effort at the local and State effort are 

going to work and that it is just not a race to the courthouse on 

everything you try to do. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Governor. 

17 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Governor, thanks again for your efforts to spur meaningful conversation about improving the Endangered Species Act. Several 

times in your testimony today you mentioned the word funding, 

and I think it is appropriate that you do because I believe—and I 

know that my colleagues believe—that funding has got to be part 

of the conversation. 

The Western Governors Association’s Endangered Species Act 

recommendations from last year stated, among other things—this 

is a quote right from the recommendations, ‘‘Congress should allocate additional funding to the services to implement the Endangered Species Act.’’ It went on to say, ‘‘Governors will work with 

Congress to identify priorities for fundings that will facilitate voluntary species conservation efforts and improve the efficacy of the 

Endangered Species Act.’’ That is part of one of the recommendations, and I very much appreciate, and I agree with this recommendation. 

Yet the draft legislation that we are considering today, as far as 

I know, does not tackle funding challenges at the State or the Federal level. So, let me just ask you. This is not a trick question, but 

do you believe that the Congress should address these issues? You 

have spoken to it already in your recommendations, but do you 

think that Congress ought to address these issues, and if so, how? 

Mr. MEAD. Senator, it is a good question. You are exactly right. 

Funding was part of our discussion. We were not equipped to say 

what that funding level, what full funding looks like, but I would 

also add to that that I don’t know these numbers, but what funding 

is going to recovering a species, what funding is going to partner 

with the States, versus funding that is used for litigation. Just in 

the work that I have had in the 7, almost 8, years, you sometimes 

get in these discussions with Federal folks and State folks and local 

folks; let’s do this so we can avoid litigation. It shouldn’t be litigation driven; it should be how to improve the opportunity for a species, in my mind. 

So, absolutely, funding has to be part of it, and as I said, reauthorization, this would be the first time in a generation. But in my 

view, we need to make sure we are spending money in the right 

areas and actually recovering and helping species, versus just gearing up to avoid, it is money for litigation strategy versus for species 

strategy. 

Senator CARPER. All right. I have one more question, if I could. 

Governor, your testimony mentions legislative proposals to prevent Endangered Species Act listings for the greater sage-grouse 

and lesser prairie-chicken for 10 years. Your testimony also acknowledges that the Endangered Species Act, and presumably the 

threat of a listing, provided part of the incentives for States, for 

stakeholders, and for the Federal Government to work together to 

successfully conserve those species. 

Chairman Barrasso’s legislative proposal, as far as I know, does 

not include the 10-year listing prohibition, for which I commend 

him, but the listing prohibition language seems to arise at every 

turn, whether it be in the annual appropriations process or during 

our consideration of the NGAA. 

18 

What negative impacts do you think a 10-year sage-grouse listing 

prohibition could have on collaborative conservation efforts in Wyoming or even more broadly? 

Mr. MEAD. Thank you, Senator. It is a tough issue, but as I tried 

to articulate in my testimony, Congress addressing individual species I do not think is the way to go. I think you have other things 

to do. And to think that a species rides on a popular vote, when 

science may direct otherwise, I don’t think is the best way to go. 

Having said that, because I think it is important to acknowledge 

this, I did support that with regard to the gray wolves. I think for 

those who are reluctant to take on this heavy lift, who say, geez, 

can Congress get it done, and I mean that respectfully, it should 

be a red flag. When Congress is having to take that up, and it was 

with gray wolves over multiple, multiple years, 20 years, and multiple, multiple lawsuits, and people doing the right thing, and the 

numbers have reached their goals, and you still can’t get the species delisted. That is why those things happen. 

Is it the best way to do it? No, but I think it is a red flag that 

is borne out of frustration for where is the end game. We have done 

everything you have asked. We have reached the goal line in terms 

of habitat and species, and we still can’t get it delisted. That is the 

frustration that causes that, I think, and that is why, in my view, 

this is the time for us to engage and make improvements, so that 

we are not leaving it, again, respectfully, to Congress to make a 

popular vote on a species. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you again for your testimony 

and your thoughtful responses. 

Mr. MEAD. Thank you, Ranking Member. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thanks, Senator Carper. 

Senator Ernst. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. 

Thank you, Governor, for being here, and thanks for being a 

leader in this area. We really do need folks stepping up and discussing this, so thank you very much. 

We do talk about, of course, delegating more authority to the 

States, and a lot of times people just have this knee-jerk reaction 

that because you are delegating more authority to the States, you 

are somehow weakening the law. I don’t necessarily believe that is 

true. I think in this case it is a good idea. 

Now, the draft legislation before us does elevate the role of the 

States. I think that is important. But it also allows the Secretaries 

of Interior or Commerce to overrule the States’ recommendations. 

So, do you believe—and I think I have heard this—but do you believe that simply allowing States to make recommendations that 

can ultimately be overruled by the Federal Government amounts to 

a weaker Endangered Species Act? 

Mr. MEAD. Thank you, Senator. I think it makes it stronger, and 

the reason I think it makes it stronger, the States aren’t asking for 

veto power; the Secretary still has that power. If the States, in the 

estimation of the Secretary, are going the wrong direction, he or 

she, the Secretary, can say that is not the way we are going to go. 

But Senator, if I am taking your question right, the role of the 

States, and I mean this respectfully to our good partners in Fish 

and Wildlife Services, shown by the chart there, they don’t have as 

19 

many people, and frankly, the expertise lies in the States. It really 

does. 

The sage-grouse effort, and I have heard people at the Interior 

say this, is one of the greatest conservation efforts ever, and with 

respect, it was led at the local level and the State level, started by 

my predecessor, Governor Freudenthal. If the State hadn’t done 

that, we would not be where we are. Without the State and the 

States’—collectively—initiative on that, the Federal Government, 

Fish and Wildlife Service would not have been able to do that. 

So, this increased role shouldn’t be viewed as usurping any authority; it should be building a collaborative partnership that is 

going to be much more effective, and still the Secretary will retain 

that opportunity, as you said, Senator, to say, no, I don’t think this 

is the right way to go. And the working draft has that mentioned 

many times; we want greater State participation, but if it is not 

working, in the Secretary’s view, it is not going to happen. 

Senator ERNST. Very good. Well, I do appreciate that. 

I am going to point out a couple examples that I am familiar 

with. Our Ranking Member mentioned the piping plover. We actually have the piping plover in Iowa as well; it is part of its breeding 

territory up and down the Missouri River. I learned so much about 

the piping plover—— 

Senator CARPER. Could I just ask? 

Senator ERNST. Yes, go ahead. 

Senator CARPER. Do you mean the piping plover is two-timing 

Delaware? 

Senator ERNST. It is. Actually, we have a much greater territory 

than Delaware, so it is. 

But I learned so much about the piping plover and the pallid 

sturgeon in the Missouri River from the Missouri River floods of 

2011. Just an example of where big Federal Government doesn’t 

necessarily work very well with the actual landowners or people on 

the ground, during that flood event, we saw a lot of boats moving 

and down the Missouri River as it flooded. 

The perception, whether it was correct or not, was that the Federal Government was more concerned about the pallid sturgeon 

and the piping plover than they were about the landowners and the 

homeowners whose homes were under water for 4 months during 

that flood event. So, the perception, whether it was correct or not, 

was that Federal Government was not communicating with local 

landowners. 

Now, as we move forward, we have other examples. Now the 

water has receded, people are trying to get their lives back to normal, but now we see those fish habitats, the breeding areas for the 

piping plovers being put into place along the Missouri River without input from those local stakeholders. Again, the perception is 

that the Federal Government cares more about the endangered 

species than they actually about those that reside in the areas. 

Some of the water has been redirected away from those breeding 

grounds and so forth, and it has caused erosion from some of the 

land where people live; they have homes along the river. So, there 

is a mistrust between the Federal Government and the folks along 

the Missouri River. 

20 

Do you believe that if there was collaboration with folks in the 

middle, from the State and local government, that that would help 

get rid of that misperception? 

Mr. MEAD. In a word, absolutely. Even beyond that, if you want 

to have voluntary efforts for your private landowner, your farmer, 

your rancher, you have to have that trust involved in that. And I 

do mean this respectfully, if they hear the Federal Government is 

going to come in and have this plan, it is just not going to be as 

effective if it is more organically grown at the State level and the 

local level, and that is why that partnership I think is a real opportunity for species. 

You mentioned sturgeon. One thing I have learned in this, we all 

become very centered on our own world. I have heard of sturgeon, 

but the piper plover, it is an education. There are a lot of species 

I have learned about. 

But I think you are exactly right, Senator, to have that trust and 

to have that local involvement absolutely is critical. You brought 

up Mother Nature. For example, one of the things, people say 

States can’t be trusted. Let’s look at the polar bear, for example. 

That is listed because of climate change. The State isn’t going to 

be able to do that. The long-eared bat, which I don’t know if you 

have long-eared bats, but it is listed—— 

Senator ERNST. Small brown bat. 

Mr. MEAD [continuing]. Because of a fungus. So, you know, those 

who say States can’t be trusted because look at the polar bear, the 

long-eared bat, that is outside of the States’ control and maybe the 

Federal control as well. But that State participation, the local participation is absolutely, I think, critical for better success in the Endangered Species Act. 

Thank you, Senator. 

Senator ERNST. I agree wholeheartedly. Thank you, Governor. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Van Hollen. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Governor, thank you for your testimony, and I commend the bipartisan process you used with respect to the Western Governors 

Association on your recommendations. Do you know whether the 

Western Governors Association Democratic Governors that supported your process, whether they have supported this draft bill? 

Mr. MEAD. Senator, I don’t know the answer to that. I am not 

disclosing private conversations, but some of the Democratic Governors I have talked to, they believe in the work; they believe in 

the draft; their fear, frankly, Senator, is that, in this process, that 

it will not go forward as we, the Western Governors or National 

Governors, envisioned. That is why, as a condition of some of the 

letters you have said and even the Western Governors’ work, they 

have made clear we reserve the right to withdraw our help on this 

if it goes awry. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. No, I appreciate that. I haven’t heard from 

any Democratic Governors who were part of the Western Governors 

Association about supporting this draft, not a one. I haven’t seen 

a piece of paper. So, until I do, while I recognize they supported 

your process, I am going to assume, I have an open invitation to 

them, that they do not support the current draft. 

21 

Look, we all recognize there are things we can do in a bipartisan 

way to improve laws that are on the books. But in my view, you 

took the right approach getting everybody around the table. To my 

knowledge, we have not followed that approach in drafting this 

piece of legislation here. 

And let me just give you one example. There are lots of provisions in this bill. There is a provision in this bill related to Federal 

employees. It requires that Governors and States give feedback on 

the performance of individual employees of the Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

Now, I recognize there are constant communications between the 

States and the Federal Government, but do you think it would be 

appropriate for you, for example, to be told that the Federal Government is going to weigh in on the performance of your State employees? 

Mr. MEAD. No, I don’t agree with that. But I do want to say this. 

I think that this process, and why I do support the working draft 

as it is consistent with Western Governors, is that it is a good start 

to a process. 

And Senator, I would not make the assumption that Democratic 

Governors don’t support the working draft. I would say that they 

would support provisions in the draft, but maybe not everything in 

there. So, to get started, what I am doing, what I think is best is 

getting Western Governors involved and National Governors involved. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. I appreciate that, but Governor, you just 

pointed out that you disagree with a particular provision in this 

draft, and I share your disagreement with that. There are obviously going to be honest disagreements sometimes between Fish 

and Wildlife employees and State employees, and I am not sure 

why would we want to give people that cudgel over certain Federal 

employees who are doing their job, some of whom, as you know, 

have gotten death threats for their work on endangered species. 

My time, apparently, has run out. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MEAD. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen. 

Senator Sullivan. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Governor, thank you. I appreciate the hard work you are doing, 

and I know it is an effort that, in my experience, has a lot of bipartisan support. When I was attorney general of Alaska, where this 

issue is a huge issue, I co-chaired the Endangered Species Act 

Working Group with my Democratic co-chair, Gary King, who was 

the former attorney general of New Mexico. 

And particularly the Western AGs, we saw a lot of common 

ground where we didn’t think this should be a partisan issue at all, 

but how to best work on the recovery of listed species and employing the best science and giving the States a more prominent role. 

So, let me talk to that issue. 

I know Senator Ernst talked about it, I know you believe it, but 

I would disagree a little bit. I think in terms of expertise, particularly the State of Alaska, we have thousands of State employees 

who are the top experts in the field probably in the world with reVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:01 Oct 24, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\31426.TXT SONYA
22 

gard to science and expertise on endangered species, including the 

polar bear, I might add. 

So, the role of the States, from your perspective, should be 

heightened. Why shouldn’t it include a veto on decisions? And let 

me give you an example. I know there are issues of cross-boundaries, where the species are moving across boundaries. What if you 

happen to be in a State the size of a continent in some ways and 

there is no cross-boundary issue, like my State? 

Mr. MEAD. Well, Senator, of course—I am sure you know this— 

you have never met a Governor who wouldn’t like greater authority 

in all things, but I think that, as the working draft, you need to 

make sure the Secretary has that authority. And I appreciate the 

magnitude of Alaska and the challenges you have there, but oftentimes these are cross-State. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Correct. And where I see that as an issue 

cross-State, I get it; one State shouldn’t have a veto. I am asking, 

and maybe it is unique to my State, which, again, is so big, has 

so many species. We care about them way more than the Feds do, 

and keeping them healthy and sustainable. 

But can you see an example where, if there isn’t a cross-boundary challenge, like there are in lower 48 States, that the State 

could even have more authority, particularly when the State has as 

much knowledge, if not more knowledge, than the Feds? 

Mr. MEAD. Senator, I appreciate what you are saying. I guess 

what I would tell you, perhaps, in the way of context is this came 

out of Western Governors. There were certainly some things that 

I wanted more. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Sure. 

Mr. MEAD. Others wanted less. I think if you start carving off a 

State, the State of Alaska, the State of Hawaii, the territories, that 

my goal is to get this moving forward, and I just worry about that 

hurting the process. But I do appreciate what you are saying, sir. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Well, look, I appreciate the hard work, and 

again, bipartisan work. 

Let me ask another issue that relates to expertise beyond the 

Federal Government. One that is particularly important, again, in 

Alaska, but it is in the draft bill, so I think it should have bipartisan support, the whole issue of traditional knowledge. 

In my State, that typically means Alaska native communities 

that have been harvesting and watching the species for literally 

thousands and thousands of years. You might know the example of 

the bowhead whale, where western scientists had a number that 

was very, very different from the whaling captains of the Inupiat 

communities on the North Slope, and it ended up that the whaling 

captains and the traditional knowledge ended up being right on the 

numbers, way more than the western scientists. 

So, I am glad to see the issue of traditional knowledge being 

highlighted in this. Do you care to speak on that topic? I think it 

is an important one that doesn’t get a lot of recognition. There are 

a lot of people who know a lot about species who don’t necessarily 

have a Ph.D. in biology from American University. 

Mr. MEAD. I think it is an important component. The draft bill, 

of course, says there is going to be scientific or commercially best 

data available. And I am not familiar with the example you gave, 

23 

but it rings true to me in that, as we were working on, for example, 

the gray wolf, I would have local ranchers say I have three of them 

in my back pasture, and your experts show that there are none in 

this part of the State. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Right. 

Mr. MEAD. So, I think more information and the more credible 

information you can have is certainly helpful. 

Senator SULLIVAN. I know my time is expiring here, but if I can 

ask one final question, Mr. Chairman. 

There has been an issue where Federal agencies, in my view, 

have abused their statutory authority by having examples of listings that stretch the definition of the foreseeable future in making 

listing decisions. Let me give you an example. 

The bearded seal was listed as threatened based on projections 

of what was going to happen 100 years in the future. Nobody 

knows what is going to happen 100 years in the future. Yet, we 

have more and more Federal agencies that are making claims that 

we are going to list this species because, 100 years from now, we 

believe it is going to be threatened. 

Now, mostly that relates to climate change, and certainly climate 

change is happening in Alaska, there is no doubt about that, but 

to be able to say, for a Federal agency, therefore, we are going to 

list a species that is healthy now, but we think it is going to be 

unhealthy 100 years from now, I just think that is an abuse of authority, and I am certainly hopeful that this legislation can rein in 

that kind of decisionmaking that doesn’t have any statutory basis. 

It happens in my State all the time. 

Do you care to comment on that, or is that an issue that you 

guys are trying to take—— 

Mr. MEAD. Thank you, Senator. We struggled with that at Western Governors for the very reason that you said, and not only because you add foreseeable future to the issue of climate change, 

and you see climate change in Alaska, you add foreseeable future 

and climate change, and then you are going to list a species. 

What do you do about it? What local work can be done? What 

State work can be done? What Federal work can be done? You have 

to have an opportunity to say we are concerned about this, so here 

are the steps you can take. And whether it is climate change or 

whether it is fungus in long-eared bat, if you just say it is listed 

based upon our view of 100-year foreseeable future, how do you motivate the local rancher or the fisherman or the concerned environmentalist to have a voluntary effort to do something about it? So, 

I do think we have to be careful on that, and that is something that 

certainly the Western Governors and the staffs are saying we have 

to be careful with that term, foreseeable future. 

Senator SULLIVAN. So, there is bipartisan concern on that issue? 

Mr. MEAD. Lots of bipartisan discussion on that. I don’t know 

that we came with a resolution that is helpful, but I think that certainly is part of the concern that was discussed. 

Senator SULLIVAN. All right, thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. 

Before heading to Senator Cardin, I want to enter into the record 

a letter from the Western Governors Association of support and 

24 

going title by title of the bill. And this letter of support is signed 

by Governor of Hawaii, a Democrat, Vice Chair of the Western 

Governors Association, Governor Ige. So, there has been a submission by a Democrat Senator. There was a question earlier asked. 

Additionally, I have a number of letters that over 100 stakeholders have written in support of the draft Endangered Species 

Act Amendments of 2018 and a bipartisan process to improve the 

ESA. They represent interests in every State, including State wildlife agencies, local governments, sportsmen and conservation 

groups, energy, forestry, agriculture, livestock, and water groups. 

I ask unanimous consent to submit these supportive letters to 

the record as well. 

Without objection, they are submitted. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

25 


31426.007
26 


31426.008
27 


31426.009
28 


31426.010
29 


31426.011
30 


31426.012
31 


31426.013
32 


31426.014
33 


31426.015
34 


31426.016
35 


31426.017
36 


31426.018
37 


31426.019
38 


31426.020
39 


31426.021
40 


31426.022
41 


31426.023
42 


31426.024
43 


31426.025
44 


31426.026
45 


31426.027
46 


31426.028
47 


31426.029
48 


31426.030
49 


31426.031
50 


31426.032
51 


31426.033
52 


31426.034
53 


31426.035
54 


31426.036
55 


31426.037
56 


31426.038
57 


31426.039
58 


31426.040
59 


31426.041
60 


31426.042
61 


31426.043
62 


31426.044
63 


31426.045
64 


31426.046
65 


31426.047
66 


31426.048
67 


31426.049
68 


31426.050
69 


31426.051
70 


31426.052
71 


31426.053
72 


31426.054
73 


31426.055
74 


31426.056
75 


31426.057
76 


31426.058
77 


31426.059
78 


31426.060
79 


31426.061
80 


31426.062
81 


31426.063
82 


31426.064
83 


31426.065
84 


31426.066
85 


31426.067
86 


31426.068
87 


31426.069
88 


31426.070
89 


31426.071
90 


31426.072
91 


31426.073
92 


31426.074
93 


31426.075
94 


31426.076
95 


31426.077
96 


31426.078
97 


31426.079
98 


31426.080
99 


31426.081
100 


31426.082
101 


31426.083
102 


31426.084
103 


31426.085
104 


31426.086
105 


31426.087
106 


31426.088
107 


31426.089
108 


31426.090
109 


31426.091
110 


31426.092
111 


31426.093
112 


31426.094
113 


31426.095
114 


31426.096
115 


31426.097
116 


31426.098
117 


31426.099
118 


31426.100
119 


31426.101
120 


31426.102
121 


31426.103
122 


31426.104
123 


31426.105
124 


31426.106
125 


31426.107
126 


31426.108
127 


31426.109
128 


31426.110
129 


31426.111
130 


31426.112
131 


31426.113
132 


31426.114
133 


31426.115
134 


31426.116
135 


31426.117
136 


31426.118
137 


31426.119
138 


31426.120
139 


31426.121
140 


31426.122
141 


31426.123
142 


31426.124
143 


31426.125
144 


31426.126
145 


31426.127
146 


31426.128
147 


31426.129
148 


31426.130
149 


31426.131
150 


31426.132
151 


31426.133
152 


31426.134
153 


31426.135
154 


31426.136
155 


31426.137
156 


31426.138
157 


31426.139
158 


31426.140
159 


31426.141
160 


31426.142
161 


31426.143
162 


31426.144
163 


31426.145
164 


31426.146
165 


31426.147
166 


31426.148
167 


31426.149
168 


31426.150
169 


31426.151
170 


31426.152
171 


31426.153
172 


31426.154
173 


31426.155
174 


31426.156
175 


31426.157
176 


31426.158
177 


31426.159
178 


31426.160
179 


31426.161
180 


31426.162
181 


31426.163
182 


31426.164
183 


31426.165
184 


31426.166
185 


31426.167
186 


31426.168
187 


31426.169
188 


31426.170
189 


31426.171
190 


31426.172
191 


31426.173
192 


31426.174
193 


31426.175
194 


31426.176
195 


31426.177
196 


31426.178
197 


31426.179
198 


31426.180
199 


31426.181
200 


31426.182
201 


31426.183
202 


31426.184
203 


31426.185
204 


31426.186
205 


31426.187
206 


31426.188
207 


31426.189
208 


31426.190
209 


31426.191
210 


31426.192
211 


31426.193
212 


31426.194
213 


31426.195
214 


31426.196
215 


31426.197
216 


31426.198
217 


31426.199
218 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for convening this hearing. 

Governor, thank you very much for your efforts. We do appreciate the fact that we are having this discussion and you are bringing Democrats and Republicans together in a bipartisan manner. 

The Endangered Species Act has been an extremely important 

policy of this country and has achieved a great deal in restoring 

species in delisting. Every time we get a delist, it is a major accomplishment. 

In our area—Senator Carper and my area—we have the Delmarva fox squirrel that was delisted. That is an incredible accomplishment in our community and is a success of the Endangered 

Species Act. 

I point that out because one of our objectives is to have action 

plans that can preserve species and make them healthier so that 

they can be delisted, and in many cases the challenges there are 

financial. So, one of the issues that I think we all could agree on, 

let’s make sure that we have adequate funding so that the Endangered Species Act can in fact work. 

I want to also just thank you for your attention to the realities 

of climate change as it relates to endangered species. Sometimes it 

is controversial for us to mention those words, so I appreciate you 

saying that directly. It is important on adaptation as it relates to 

endangered species. There are things that you can’t do as a result 

of management of the species because of the exterior factors that 

are changing. We want to change the exterior factors, but you don’t 

have that ability to make that immediate impact, so you have to 

adapt to the current status, and I appreciate the manner in which 

you dealt with that. 

I want to deal with one area that has brought us some concern, 

and that is the modifications you make in judicial review, and the 

process and your recommendations. You mentioned that Governors 

like to have a lot of power. That is very true. I was a speaker of 

my State assembly, and I remember standing up to our Governor. 

Legislatures like a lot of power. 

But judicial review is checks and balances in our system, and because we have strong checks and balances, it makes for a much 

more open process where people have an opportunity for input because they know that there is always the possibility of the judicial 

branch getting involved in the process. 

So, I just really want to wave a concern. A lot of people who are 

very much committed to the working of the Endangered Species 

Act have brought at least to my attention their concern on the 

modifications you make in your proposal on judicial review, and I 

would just urge us to step back a moment and recognize that it is 

in all of our interests to make sure that we do have checks and balances in our system. It is very possible that State officials in your 

State will act responsibly and will have a very open process, but 

in other States they may not, and the judicial review gives us that 

opportunity for balance in our system; and I think, when you look 

at policies today in Washington, it has never been more important. 

219 

So, I just point that out. I welcome your thoughts on it, but I 

would just ask you to be open minded as we look at ways that we 

may make this more effective. 

Mr. MEAD. Senator, if working on this doesn’t do anything else, 

it keeps you open minded, so I will do that. I would say this with 

regard to judicial review. Absolutely important to have checks and 

balances. We know that, and it is important. 

But in this context, I mentioned in my opening comment about 

the years and the multiple lawsuits with regard to gray wolves 

long after the population numbers had been reached. And if you 

want to have voluntary efforts—and I just want to highlight the 

sage-grouse work we have done in the State of Wyoming with 

ranchers, energy companies, Audubon Society—to have those voluntary efforts, you also have to know that if you do right, and you 

take care of the species, and you get to those goal lines, that there 

in fact can be a delisting, that you have reached your goal. 

So there has to be a point, and that is why I think with the 

Chairman’s comment about a cooling off period, we need to be able 

to see that it works. And in the working draft, the Secretary, of 

course, does continue to have the authority for emergency listing. 

I would never suggest that courts not be part of the process, but 

I am suggesting that, as you see now individual species being addressed by Congress, it is borne out of frustration that there is no 

end in sight, and that is not, in my view, the best way to address 

species conservation. 

Senator CARDIN. And I would underscore that, at times, Congress 

and the statute have left those areas either ambiguous or not in 

the best interest, giving the courts little discretion as to how they 

review. The gray wolf is an example of maybe the statute not being 

appropriate for dealing with the circumstances in different regions 

of our country. 

So, I just point out that if we draft the statute correctly, judicial 

review is an extremely important part and can be done in a timely 

way, but allows for a more open, transparent process as the administrative areas move forward. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MEAD. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Cardin. 

Senator Sullivan, you had one last question? 

Senator SULLIVAN. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. 

Governor, I just wanted to touch on, again, this is a really bipartisan issue that we had in a hearing a couple years ago, the Obama 

administration’s Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe, in a 

hearing like this, we were talking about opportunities for bipartisan reforms to the ESA that I don’t think has been amended 

since 1988 significantly, but it went to this issue of multiple listings. 

So, you would have certain groups come, and they are trying to 

get a listing where they file dozens, if not more, species in one petition, and that, of course, gums up the entire process, which may 

have been their intent. Even Director Ashe, under President 

Obama, was saying we don’t think that is helpful; we think we 

should be able to reform that to have a much more narrow process. 

220 

So that, at least in a hearing here, was something that was a 

very bipartisan view. Did the Governors get to that issue of multiple listings? It kind of goes to some of the other topics we have 

been talking about. 

Mr. MEAD. We did in the discussions. Just a history, last time 

I was here testifying was on the House side, it was with Dan Ashe, 

and Director Ashe and I have had that conversation at times about 

that multiple listing. 

I just want to underscore one of the things you said. Part of the 

problem that we have with multiple listings and part of the problem that we were trying to address with Western Governors is this 

issue of when a species is listed, or when multiple species are 

thrown out there, you are spending money and time in areas that 

it doesn’t need to be spent. 

Who suffers from that? It is not the people; it is the species. And 

that is, in my view, one of the reasons that it needs to be helped, 

is we are spending a lot of time, money making sure that attorneys 

are employed, but we are losing money and resources for species. 

And that is why, when we addressed this as Western Governors, 

it was bipartisan because the Western Governors, Governors, the 

country cares about species. Let’s be smart about how we are 

spending our money and our time, and let’s not have a system that 

is open to abuse that causes those delays. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Great point. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you, Senator Sullivan. 

I would say that a significant number of environmental and conservation organizations have voiced their enthusiasm to work with 

this Committee in this bipartisan effort, Governor, to modernize 

the Endangered Species Act. Among these groups are the Western 

Agriculture and Conservation Coalition, which includes the Environmental Defense Fund, the Family Farm Alliance, The Nature 

Conservancy, the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, the National Audubon Society, and the California Farm Bureau. Additionally, the National Wildlife Federation and the Theodore Roosevelt 

Conservation Partnership have echoed this willingness. 

So, I look forward to working with these and other organizations 

that believe the status quo isn’t good enough and the Endangered 

Species Act can be improved, and I ask unanimous consent to submit these letters for the record. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

221 


31426.200
222 


31426.201
223 


31426.202
224 


31426.203
225 


31426.204
226 


31426.205
227 


31426.206
228 


31426.207
229 


31426.208
230 


31426.209
231 


31426.210
232 


31426.211
233 


31426.212
234 


31426.213
235 


31426.214
236 


31426.215
237 


31426.216
238 


31426.217
239 


31426.218
240 


31426.219
241 


31426.220
242 


31426.221
243 


31426.222
244 


31426.223
245 


31426.224
246 


31426.225
247 


31426.226
248 


31426.227
249 


31426.228
250 


31426.229
251 


31426.230
252 


31426.231
253 


31426.232
254 


31426.233
255 


31426.234
256 


31426.235
257 


31426.236
258 


31426.237
259 


31426.238
260 


31426.239
261 


31426.240
262 


31426.241
263 


31426.242
264 


31426.243
265 


31426.244
266 


31426.245
267 


31426.246
268 


31426.247
269 


31426.248
270 


31426.249
271 


31426.250
272 


31426.251
273 


31426.252
274 


31426.253
275 


31426.254
276 


31426.255
277 


31426.256
278 


31426.257
279 


31426.258
280 


31426.259
281 


31426.260
282 


31426.261
283 


31426.262
284 


31426.263
285 

Senator CARPER. I object. No, I don’t object. 

Senator BARRASSO. Do you have something you would like to 

add? 

Senator CARPER. Can I ask a consent request of my own? 

Senator BARRASSO. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. I do not object. 

I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a 2017 letter 

from the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, which recommends that the statutory and scientific integrity of the endangered species be maintained. 

I also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record additional 

letters and supplemental materials regarding the draft legislation 

that we are considering today. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection, and there is none. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

286 


31426.264
287 


31426.265
288 


31426.266
289 


31426.267
290 


31426.268
291 


31426.269
292 


31426.270
293 


31426.271
294 


31426.272
295 


31426.273
296 


31426.274
297 


31426.275
298 


31426.276
299 


31426.277
300 


31426.278
301 


31426.279
302 


31426.280
303 


31426.281
304 


31426.282
305 


31426.283
306 


31426.284
307 


31426.285
308 


31426.286
309 


31426.287
310 


31426.288
311 


31426.289
312 


31426.290
313 


31426.291
314 


31426.292
315 


31426.293
316 


31426.294
317 


31426.295
318 


31426.296
319 


31426.297
320 


31426.298
321 


31426.299
322 


31426.300
323 


31426.301
324 


31426.302
325 


31426.303
326 


31426.304
327 


31426.305
328 


31426.306
329 


31426.307
330 


31426.308
331 


31426.309
332 


31426.310
333 


31426.311
334 


31426.312
335 


31426.313
336 


31426.314
337 


31426.315
338 


31426.316
339 


31426.317
340 


31426.318
341 


31426.319
342 


31426.320
343 

Senator BARRASSO. Governor Mead, thank you so very much. We 

appreciate your being here. You are welcome to stay and listen to 

the discussion of the next panel. There are a number of interns 

from Wyoming who are here listening. I hope you will get a chance 

to visit with each of them. 

But thank you so much for being here. We look forward to being 

with you this weekend and the following weekend and all through 

the week at Frontier Days. 

Mr. MEAD. Mr. Chairman, I just thank you for your leadership. 

Senator Carper, thank you for your leadership as well. 

When we discussed this with Western Governors, we recognized 

that it is up to us, and we hope we got you all a good start, and 

we appreciate your continued bipartisan work. So, thank you very 

much for the time today and for your efforts. It is appreciated very 

much. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, Senator Rounds was a former Governor, 

and Senator Rounds was trying to get here to visit and ask a couple questions, but he seems to be unavoidably delayed. 

Mr. MEAD. Likely effectively endangers the rest of the members 

leaving, so thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Governor. Appreciate it. 

Our next panel—and I invite them to the come to the table—is 

Bob Broscheid, who is the Director of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife, and Matt Strickler, who is the Secretary of Natural Resources 

for the Commonwealth of Virginia. 

Thank you both for being here. I am grateful that you would take 

time to be with us. I hope you have enjoyed and benefited from the 

testimony of Governor Mead. 

As you are readying your testimony, we ask that you limit your 

testimony to 5 minutes so that there will be time for questions 

from the Committee. 

With that, Director Broscheid, welcome to the Committee, and 

please proceed at your leisure. 

STATEMENT OF BOB BROSCHEID, 

DIRECTOR, COLORADO PARKS AND WILDLIFE 

Mr. BROSCHEID. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

the warm welcome. 

Good morning, Chairman, Ranking Member Carper, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to represent 

the Governor of Colorado, John Hickenlooper, who couldn’t be here 

and asked me to come in his stead, and to discuss our or my experiences as a State director who is on the front lines of management 

of threatened and endangered species conservation. 

As I provided in my written testimony, Governor Hickenlooper 

has not taken a position on this draft, but remains very supportive 

of the Western Governors Association process that Governor Mead 

laid out, and continuing this dialogue with Congress toward bipartisan practical solutions that improve the implementation of the 

Endangered Species Act. 

For the past 25 years I have had the privilege to work in partnership with many Federal, State, and local government agencies, 

non-governmental organizations, and private landowners on many 

issues associated with Endangered Species Act implementation. 

344 

The Endangered Species Act, as Congress laid out in the passage, is premised on the State and Federal partnership approach; 

however, there are frustrations and certainly disagreement on all 

sides about what is broken and why, but more notably how do we 

fix it. These frustrations are evident in the enormous number of 

lawsuits being litigated and discussed in courts all over the country 

on both sides of these issues. 

For Colorado, we maintain 960 species that inhabit our State 

border, of which 210 species fall under some level of special concern. My agency spends an average of $8 million of State funding 

per year on those 210 special status species. In the last 10 years 

my agency alone has spent in excess of $100 million on just two 

species of sage-grouse. Our expenditures are viewed as not only in 

conserving a threatened species or endangered species, or one that 

could be, but we view them as investments to prevent the need for 

that listing. 

Additionally, Congress congressionally appropriated revenue 

sources such as Farm Bill conservation programs, and Land and 

Water Conservation Fund also provide very critical support, but it 

is not enough. Draft legislation as you had discussed with the previous panelist is being considered in the House right now as Recovering America’s Wildlife Act, and it is intended to alleviate this financial shortfall and provide much needed funding for those species at risk all over the country. 

However, one of the provisions in the discussion draft talk about 

State involvement. Not all States have the same technical, financial, or political wherewithal to engage in all aspects of the Endangered Species Act. We believe it is important to include provisions 

that allow each State the opportunity to opt in to whatever desired 

level of engagement. I believe this is consistent with what Congress 

intended some 45 years ago, when the Endangered Species Act was 

passed. 

The other role from the States is our desire to be better engaged 

in the Act is not solely about shifting or the loss of a species from 

State to Federal jurisdiction, or about veto power. It is also about 

better ensuring that other State interests and authorities are fully 

considered in the listing and recovery process. These authorities— 

such as water rights, land use development, private property 

rights, and air quality—are all some of the factors that influence 

State and local economies and recovery of those species. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I will keep my comments very short, so thank 

you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Broscheid follows:] 

345 


31426.321
346 


31426.322
347 


31426.323
348 


31426.324
349 


31426.325
350 


31426.326
351 


31426.327
352 


31426.328
353 


31426.329
354 


31426.330
355 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you so much for being with us 

today and for sharing your comments. 

Now I would like to turn to Mr. Strickler. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF MATTHEW J. STRICKLER, SECRETARY OF 

NATURAL RESOURCES, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

Mr. STRICKLER. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking 

Member Carper, members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify today on this draft legislation and this important 

topic of conserving the shared natural heritage of Virginians and 

all Americans. 

My name is Matt Strickler. I serve as Secretary of Natural Resources for Governor Ralph Northam. I oversee the Commonwealth’s Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and Department of Conservation and Recreation, which together lead our efforts to protect native Virginia wildlife and plants, including State 

and federally listed threatened and endangered species. 

Virginia currently has 89 ESA listed species, ranging from a flying squirrel, to five varieties of sea turtles, to the Atlantic sturgeon, a fish that can reach 14 feet long and 800 pounds, and has 

been around since the time of the dinosaurs. 

We have strong, collaborative working relationships with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries 

Service on Endangered Species Act issues. Those relationships 

have led to some impressive accomplishments in conserving and recovering populations of imperiled species. 

Collaboration among Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of 

Game and Inland Fisheries, the College of William and Mary, and 

other partners conserved critical bald eagle nesting areas in the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed and reduced the impacts of land disturbance, a key to the eagle recovery effort and ultimate delisting 

in 2007. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Game and Inland Fisheries, and The 

Nature Conservancy have worked together to protect endangered 

habitat in Southeast Virginia. Now the population is expanding on 

Federal, State, and private lands. 

And the restoration plan co-developed by the Fish and Wildlife 

Service and Game and Inland Fisheries is bringing freshwater 

mussels back from the brink of extinction in southwest Virginia’s 

Clinch, Powell, and Holston Rivers, one of the most biologically diverse areas on the North American continent. 

We certainly have work left to do, but Governor Northam and I 

see species conservation and recovery as an opportunity, not a hurdle. We believe that when our lands and waters are kept natural 

and clean enough to support a health and diverse ecology, they are 

better able to support a healthy and diverse economy. These places 

become more attractive for use by hunters, anglers, hikers, bikers, 

paddlers, and the like. And they become more desirable places to 

live, work, play, start a business, and raise a family. 

Speaking to the draft bill before us today, I agree with the Chairman’s assessment that we need to do more for threatened and endangered species than keep them on life support. But the most important thing we can do is commit greater resources to the vital 

task of recovery. I also agree that the Endangered Species Act can 

356 

be strengthened, and I respect the dialogue initiated by the Western Governors Association to explore potentially beneficial ideas. 

The discussion draft released by the Chairman, however, contains provisions that would hinder Virginia’s ability to make the 

most of our partnerships with Federal agencies by complicating 

proven and established species protection and recovery processes. 

The Commonwealth of Virginia cannot support the legislation in its 

current form. 

More generally, I am also concerned that even well intentioned 

efforts to amend the ESA could open the door to provisions that 

would harm its essential purpose. Some of the provisions suggested 

in this draft and in the Western Governors Association report 

would do that. However, the primary reason many species are 

where they are is precisely because States, including Virginia, have 

not had the resources or the political will to do the jobs themselves. 

That is why the Endangered Species Act is so important; it separates the complicated scientific and management questions of biodiversity conservation from local political pressures. 

As a practical matter, I believe this bill would make working 

with adjacent States to recover shared species more difficult. As a 

philosophical matter, these resources do not belong just to Virginia 

or to Wyoming or to any other single State; they belong to all 

Americans. 

In the view of Virginia, the existing Act and regulations strike 

the appropriate balance of shared responsibility between State and 

Federal agencies. We have multiple opportunities to participate in 

and provide information to ESA decisionmaking, including recovery 

planning and implementation, and we offer information and recommendations on proposals to list species, as well. 

We know that the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service are viewing the scientific information we 

provide them and using it when it is the best available. It is our 

view that the best way to improve implementation of the ESA and 

to recover more species faster is for Congress to provide adequate 

funding for science and management of these resources and their 

habitat. 

Federal agencies should absolutely be held accountable for how 

these funds are spent and should be required to document progress 

and results. But we should not forget that the ESA, as written, has 

a 99 percent success rate at preventing the extinction of listed species and that 90 percent of species with recovery plans are on track 

to meet their goals on schedule. To use the Chairman’s medical 

analogy, if you look at the Endangered Species Act as an emergency room, an ER doctor with a 99 percent success rate of keeping 

patients alive is pretty impressive. 

Moving forward, Virginia hopes to work with Congress to improve the Endangered Species Act and secure the kind of funding 

for Federal and State wildlife agencies that is necessary to speed 

recovery of ESA listed species. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Strickler follows:] 

357 


31426.331
358 


31426.332
359 


31426.333
360 


31426.334
361 


31426.335
362 


31426.336
363 


31426.337
364 


31426.338
365 


31426.339
366 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you so much for your testimony. 

Mr. Broscheid, Director, the challenges surrounding implementation of the Endangered Species Act don’t just affect the West. We 

talk about the Western Governors Association, but according to the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services’ 7 year work plan, there are over 

360 additional species that are going to be considered for listing by 

2023, so in the next 5 years; and many of these species are in 

States in the East, the South, and the Midwest. 

In terms of the numbers on the list, Colorado between 21 and 40, 

but if you look at Virginia, North Carolina, Florida these places, 

the East and the South, seem to really be impacted. A staggering 

68 species are going to be considered in Virginia alone; 43 in Tennessee, 42 in Florida, 41 in North Carolina. Dozens more are going 

to be considered in other States throughout the country. 

I would just say, shouldn’t these States be given a greater role 

to play in helping prevent these listings in the first place, by protecting species, and if the listings do occur, have the States have 

a greater role in helping recover these species? 

Mr. BROSCHEID. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that question. Absolutely, I agree on all of those points. You talked previously with 

the Governor, and I agree with his response. State wildlife agencies 

maintain very broad police powers within their borders. We in Colorado maintain a very strong scientific and research program, as 

well as the landowner connections that we have with local governments, private landowners, and then can work across State lines, 

like the Governor mentioned about sage-grouse. 

We are engaged. In Colorado we are aware of those numbers, 

and with the limited amount of funding that we have available, we 

are having to make decisions about where to put that funding to 

have the biggest impact—prioritize, essentially. 

Our role in recovery plannings and listing and delisting and 

down-listing processes, as well as bringing the best available 

science. In most cases, States are the only ones who have that, in 

conjunction with universities, and I think that affords us an opportunity to sit at the table and discuss this. If these are going to be 

science based decisions, let’s make sure we have the best available 

science. 

Senator BARRASSO. We had a hearing in February—this past— 

of 2017, and at the time Jamie Rappaport Clark, President and 

CEO of the Defenders of Wildlife, a former director of U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service under President Clinton, acknowledged, said, 

‘‘Certainly, the ESA could work better, absolutely.’’ 

I guess you agree with that. Then I would say why is it important for States to have more of a say? 

Mr. BROSCHEID. Mr. Chairman, States are concerned, first of all. 

They are very concerned about threatened and endangered species, 

and their management and their future survival; that they won’t 

need the protections of the Act. States like mine have been very 

lucky about the funding that is available, non-Federal funds that 

we can commit to this. 

But I think in the broader sense, in the highest level, it is talking about economies; it is talking about working landscapes; private landowners that have very large ranches. It is about our water 

supply; it is about all of those things that, as a State, we are very 

367 

concerned about, and I think that should afford us an opportunity 

and a seat prominently at the table when we talk about listings 

and recovery. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Senator Booker has been good to come not once, 

but twice today. I am going to yield to him so he doesn’t miss a 

chance to ask questions, then I will ask later. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Booker. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you very much. It is not often that Delaware defers to New Jersey, but I am grateful for that, sir. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOOKER. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I want to 

start off by just saying that the Endangered Species Act has been 

incredibly successful by any measure, but statistically, when I was 

mayor of the city of Newark, I used to write, In God We Trust, but 

everybody else bring us data. The data is compelling: 99 percent of 

the wildlife under the Endangered Species Act protection has been 

saved from extinction. Ninety-nine percent. We have a great track 

record. 

And while the huge task of recovering a species from the brink 

of extinction often takes decades, the majority of the species that 

have been listed under the ESA are recovering within the timeframes that have been projected. 

Now, I want to just emphasize for the record how dire our current situation is on the planet Earth. We are in a global extinction 

crisis of a proportion that most Americans don’t understand. 

It is estimated that, right now, more than one in six species on 

the planet are threatened with extinction in this century alone. According to a report released by the 2016 World Wildlife Fund, it is 

estimated the global populations of fish, birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles declined 58 percent between about the time I was 

born, 1970, and today, meaning that we have lost more than half 

of all the wildlife on the planet, more than half of all the wildlife 

on the planet Earth in the last 50 years. 

Species today are going extinct thousands of times faster than 

natural extinction rates. Again, this is staggering. This is stunning, 

that half of all the wildlife on the planet Earth—in my lifetime— 

have gone. 

So, given this extinction crisis, I just believe that we are considering a bill that, in its total conception, is taking us in the wrong 

direction. It is a step in the wrong direction. And rather than focusing on what we have heard from the other testimony that I sat in 

earlier, on the urgent need to increase resources to do a better job 

at protecting species. Governors from both sides of the aisle would 

echo that we need more investment on the Federal level to deal 

with the crisis. 

And this is not just about animals; this has a profound impact 

on human beings, on every American. And I just believe that this 

bill would move us away from the best available science and would 

delay and restrict, ultimately, judicial review. 

So, in the few moments I have left, Mr. Strickler, the bill we are 

considering today would prevent any legal challenge to delisting determination by the Fish and Wildlife Service for 5 years. So, the 

Fish and Wildlife Service, if they make a mistake, which we all do, 

368 

and prematurely delist a species, this mistake couldn’t be challenged for 5 years in court. 

I am wondering about that particular section. Do you have an 

opinion about that, and do you believe it is going to help the crisis 

we have, the endangered species crisis we have right now in America and beyond? 

Mr. STRICKLER. Senator Booker, thank you for the question. I 

certainly understand the sentiment behind this proposal. I think, 

as a practical matter, it is concerning to the Commonwealth of Virginia. 

As you mentioned, species recovery is a question of science, and 

science is an evolving process. We are always finding out more 

than we currently know about listed species and the ecosystems 

they live in. And judicial review is the tool that we have to make 

sure that we are doing things right as executive and legislative 

branches. If there is a situation where we make a delisting decision 

that we find out, 2 years later, was an error, having to wait 3 more 

years for someone to be able to challenge that is not really the 

place we want to be, so, for that reason, I think it is perhaps misguided. 

Senator BOOKER. And it is a balance. I don’t think there is an 

American who doesn’t think we are overly litigious in many ways, 

but it is really a balance between having the courts have the flexibility necessary so that science can actually guide. I guess that is 

next question I have in the few seconds I have remaining, is one 

of the strengths of the ESA as we know it is the flexibility it provides the Fish and Wildlife Service to update recovery plans as 

those facts change on the ground, but this bill would require unanimous agreement among members of a recovery team in order to 

change the goals of a recovery plan, even if new scientific evidence 

emerged of an increased threat to species. 

Do you believe that this change would help or hurt the efforts 

to protect endangered species? 

Mr. STRICKLER. Thank you for the question, Senator. I think it 

would hinder species recovery efforts. And again, I understand 

where this is coming from. States have expressed frustration in the 

past when recovery criteria are set through the recovery planning 

process and then, because of new data, new science coming in to 

the equation, the end game changes a little bit as far as what is 

necessary to recover a species, and some people think that is shifting the goalpost. Really, it is just following the best available 

science, and I think this provision would prevent us from doing 

that. 

Senator BOOKER. I am grateful, sir. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Senator Duckworth. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

During our last hearing on the Endangered Species Act, we 

heard about the bipartisan process previous leaders of this Committee embraced, developed, refined, and ultimately passed the Endangered Species Recovery Act of 1997. I am concerned that the 

current discussion draft diverges from that bipartisan model, as 

369 

evidenced by numerous conservation stakeholders who have already come out in opposition to the current draft. 

As we look to modernize ESA, it is important that we always remember the foundational policy goals of this seminal Act: to protect 

and recover our Nation’s endangered species and ecosystems. And 

we must never forget that ESA has been incredibly successful in 

pulling back more than 99 percent of listed species from the brink 

of extinction. 

Any effort to reform this critical law must recognize this fact and 

be very careful to guarantee that, at the very least, we do no harm 

when it comes to modifying our current science based framework. 

And that is where my questioning is going to go to, Mr. Strickler. 

I think I am going to address you first. 

In your testimony, you noted that the Federal Government reviews your department’s scientific information and will use it so 

long as it represents the best available data. Can you explain why 

it is so important to use the best available science when justifying 

the Endangered Species Act decisions and describe how this bill 

might negatively impact the way the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services uses State data? 

Mr. STRICKLER. Senator Duckworth, thank you for the question. 

The importance of using the best available science is because these 

species are critically imperiled, and we may not have another 

chance to get it right if we are not using the best available science. 

In many cases, as the Chairman and others have noted, the best 

available science is science that is being produced by State agencies. In other cases, the best available science is being produced by 

research universities or nonprofit groups, or the Federal Government itself, and in many cases, the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

So, I think elevating State produced data above data produced 

and science conducted by other stakeholders that have just as 

much concern, just as much care for the species that are under Endangered Species Act protection really runs a risk of kind of 

marginalizing potentially very good science and may put us in a 

situation where delisting listed species is easier, but actually recovering them in a meaningful ecological or biological sense is more 

difficult. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

I want to address funding a little bit, as well. Although this draft 

bill dramatically redefines the State’s role in species management, 

it does fail to provide new resources to address the current funding 

shortfalls that hinder both Federal and State species conservation 

programs. This is a serious shortcoming, since, even with the 

strongest law, it will be weakly enforced if it does not have vital 

funding. 

Again, Mr. Strickler, in your opinion, should Congress prioritize 

using any ESA modernization effort to significantly increase Federal funding to help States better implement species recovery efforts? 

Mr. STRICKLER. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I think 

that funding is the critical question here. Mr. Broscheid mentioned 

that his State has been in triage mode, basically, with having to 

prioritize the most critically endangered species, and we are, too, 

370 

and that is certainly something that is experienced across the country. 

And a big part of that is because, at least the information that 

I have shows about a quarter of federally listed species receive 

$10,000 or less per year toward their recovery. That is just inadequate, and we are never going to make the progress that we need, 

regardless of what States are doing, if that is the kind of commitment that the Federal Government is able to make. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

With my remaining time, Mr. Broscheid, can you talk a little bit 

about the funding needs for States in terms of Federal funding for 

the management of endangered species? 

Mr. BROSCHEID. Senator, I agree with Mr. Strickler. It is essential. It is everything. To recover habitats, to conduct the science, to 

sit on recovery teams and develop these recovery plans all take resources right now that are coming from State or legislatively, at 

the State level, appropriated dollars. Certainly, funding is probably 

the biggest impact to and prevention of recovery of species of not 

just to prevent them from extinction, but to move them from off the 

list, where they don’t need the protections of the Act anymore. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you so much. 

Thank you, both of you gentlemen, for being here today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Duckworth. 

Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much. 

Appreciate all your testimony. In your testimony, you have spoken to the importance of collaboration between Federal and State 

agencies, and true collaboration is very helpful and essential to understanding what is going on at both levels and how those things 

interact. To that end, I want to understand a few of the practical 

events of the bill. 

Secretary Strickler, what is the practical effect of a Governor appointing half the members of the recovery team? Does it make it 

easier or harder for local interests to influence recovery outcomes? 

Mr. STRICKLER. Senator Merkley, thank you for the question. I 

think, from perhaps some perspective, it makes sense for localities 

and States that are in the area, physical area of a threatened or 

endangered species to have a greater role in recovery, but I think 

this particular provision would throw things out of balance. In one 

sense, when a species is listed, it means that the States where that 

species exist have not done an adequate job of conserving the species in the first place, so to give the States the primary authority 

and an equal number or majority of members on a recovery team 

I think kind of goes against common sense, perhaps. 

The other thing I think that is worth noting is that there are 

other States that perhaps these species don’t exist that have an interest in protecting these species. We certainly, in Virginia, have 

folks who visit the West and appreciate western States’ wildlife 

and have an interest in making sure that that wildlife is conserved. 

So, for those reasons, I think that is where we come down on that. 

Senator MERKLEY. So just in terms of basic collaboration understanding, it makes sense to have a very rich dialogue with local experts, local decisionmakers, but your concern is about the formal 

371 

structure of the recovery team? Does that take us to the issue of 

the unanimous vote being required to be able to update a plan? 

Mr. STRICKLER. Yes, sir. I think that that particular provision 

would make it very challenging if new science was introduced, to 

be able to kind of do adaptive management and shift on the fly the 

way that we are working to recover species. 

Back to your original question, I apologize for not answering it 

very articulately, but collaboration is absolutely necessary to this 

process, and it is collaboration among States, it is collaboration between the States and the Federal Government. At least in Virginia, 

and I certainly can’t speak directly to the experience of other 

States, but we feel like we have that relationship. 

Our Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and our Department of Conservation and Recreation Natural Heritage Program 

work closely on a daily basis with Fish and Wildlife Service. There 

is nothing that Fish and Wildlife Service is planning to do with respect to threatened and endangered species in Virginia that our 

fish and wildlife agencies do not know about and are not working 

hand in hand with the Federal Government on. 

Senator MERKLEY. We have a situation out in the West where 

Oregon put together a whole team of State experts of all kinds to 

try to develop a plan because we wanted to avoid a Federal listing, 

but it was the Federal listing that motivated us to develop that 

plan. Not only did we do the State plan, but we also then used extensive use of candidate conservation agreements, because essentially said if you do these things on your own private land, then 

you are protected from additional measures that might be adopted 

if we do get listed. That combination really motivated people to 

come together. 

I am looking at the structure here and seeing if essentially Federal action depends upon full sign off by a State, then essentially 

Oregon wouldn’t have acted on the sage-grouse; the Federal Government would have kicked in late in the process at great stress 

and odds, rather than having had a true collaboration. 

Is there a possibility this could actually undermine the type of 

collaboration that acts early and quickly on an endangered species? 

Mr. STRICKLER. Thank you for the question. I think, just to go 

back to your initial point, the things that you mentioned, candidate 

conservation agreements, safe harbor agreements, proactive conservation work to try to preclude listing or take positive conservation steps before a species is listed, those things really show the 

flexibility of the ESA as it is written. Of course, there are processes 

that can be improved and that are always improving and would 

make things a little more seamless with respect to those kinds of 

voluntary agreements, but they are really helpful, and they are 

able to be entered into under the Act, and I think that is a very 

valuable thing. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, good to have you here. 

Mr. Chairman, the Secretary was on my staff over on the Natural Resources Committee, so I am used to actually having him sit 

372 

next to me in a hearing. And it is good to see you on the other side 

of the dais as the Secretary from the State of Virginia. 

Matt actually is an oyster farmer. That is what he did in a previous life, so I am looking forward to harvesting the pearls of wisdom from you here today. He has always been a common sense, 

smart, pragmatic advisor. 

You say in your testimony that the best way to improve implementation of the Endangered Species Act and to recover more species faster is for Congress to provide adequate funding for science 

and management of those resources and their habitat. 

What does adequate funding look like? How much more do we 

need to appropriate? Where is the need the greatest? 

Mr. STRICKLER. Senator Markey, thank you for the question and 

for your kind remarks. It is good to see you again. 

The answer of how much is enough is a difficult one to answer 

and perhaps is one that congressional appropriators need to deal 

with, and not me, but I think it is safe to say that we are not there 

yet. At the risk of being redundant, again, the information that I 

have received is showing that about a quarter of threatened and 

endangered species are receiving less than $10,000 a year toward 

recovery, and that is just not acceptable. We are not going to be 

able to make meaningful progress in recovering these species or 

doing much more than, as the Chairman mentioned, keeping them 

on life support, without a significant dedication of resources. 

Senator MARKEY. So, we have prevented 99 percent of listed species from going extinct because of the Act, but it always depends 

upon the best science. 

In your opinion, how much of that success has been dependent 

upon using the best science in order to ensure that the Endangered 

Species Act works? 

Mr. STRICKLER. Thank you for the question. In my opinion, the 

science is critical; it is the most important piece of ensuring that 

the Endangered Species Act works successfully. 

Senator MARKEY. And what would the impact be of this draft legislation that is being presented to us in terms of the role that 

science will play in making decisions? 

Mr. STRICKLER. Thank you for the question. I think that there 

is some frustration that has been expressed, and this may be based 

on some experience, that States aren’t having science that they 

produce, at least in their minds, adequately considered by the Fish 

and Wildlife Service when they are making listing and delisting decisions and recovery planning and things like that. 

My experience and Virginia’s experience is that the Fish and 

Wildlife Service does take the State concerns into account and is 

using State science when it is the best available. I think that the 

current process is working, and we are skeptical of upsetting that 

balance. 

Senator MARKEY. In your testimony, you mentioned that this 

draft legislation contains provisions that would hinder Virginia’s 

ability to work with Federal agencies under the Endangered Species Act. Can you elaborate on that? 

Mr. STRICKLER. Yes, sir. I think one of the key points here is 

when you are setting up a recovery plan, for example, under this 

new legislation, one State has to be the lead. We share threatened 

373 

and endangered populations of a lot of aquatic species in the Tennessee River watershed with Tennessee. Without the Federal Government, the Fish and Wildlife Service being able to step in and 

be a referee to that process, I don’t think things would work as well 

trying to recover these species if Virginia and Tennessee were 

pointing fingers at each other without a central node to kind of coordinate things and point everybody in the right direction. 

Senator MARKEY. Finally, this draft legislation currently limits 

judicial review of the Endangered Species Act on decisions such as 

the delisting of species. What would, in your opinion, the impact 

of reduction of judicial review have in terms of your State’s role, 

but in general, our ability to protect endangered species? 

Mr. STRICKLER. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. I don’t want 

to be redundant on this point either, but I think limiting judicial 

review and limiting the ability of citizens to hold their government 

accountable for decisions that, in the view of the citizens, they 

think are not the right decisions, you know, if people bring court 

challenges that are frivolous or not adequate, they are going to be 

rejected. We have seen that in the past. Litigation is an important 

tool. It is not the only tool, but it is an important tool for species 

recovery. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you. Thank you. We are proud of you 

sitting down there. We thank you for your service. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Strickler, do I understand you once served 

in the House of Representative as a professional staffer? 

Mr. STRICKLER. With great trepidation, I will answer yes. 

Senator CARPER. Who were some of the members you worked 

with in that time before? 

Mr. STRICKLER. I had the privilege, first, of working for then 

Ranking Member Ed Markey, and when he moved over to this venerable body I worked for Peter DeFazio from Oregon, and then, 

more recently, for Raul Grijalva from Arizona. 

Senator CARPER. Of those three, who would you say was your favorite to work for? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MARKEY. Or to put it another way, who hired you the 

first time? 

Mr. STRICKLER. I was hired by Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you. Excellent choice. 

Senator CARPER. I have no further questions. Well, I have one. 

Thank you both for being here today and for bringing your sense 

of humor, and for your commitment and your service. 

Mr. Secretary, your testimony mentions the economic opportunity to maintain diverse ecology and for restoring our lands and 

our water. You state that ‘‘These places become more attractive for 

use by hunters, anglers, hikers, and bikers in Virginia.’’ 

I grew up in Virginia; I grew up in Danville and Roanoke. You 

drive down Route 81, Interstate 81 on your way from Maryland on 

your way to North Carolina, where my wife is from. We drive down 

Route 81, where I used to take my hunting dogs and go hunting 

for quail, so I have great affection for Virginia, especially that part 

of Virginia. 

374 

As I said in my opening statement, which I think you were here 

to hear, we share this experience in Delaware, and that is that we 

want these places to become more attractive for use by hunters and 

anglers, bikers and hikers. Not only do people travel from far and 

near to see the endangered species, all kinds of threatened and endangered species on Delmarva Peninsula and in Delaware, but 

when they do, they spend money, and they support our local economies. 

Would you just elaborate on how habitat restoration and species 

conservation can bolster economies in Virginia and beyond? 

Mr. STRICKLER. Yes, Senator Carper. Thank you for the question. 

I think, directly speaking with respect to individual species, 

there are industries and economies that we have seen pop up in 

Virginia around recovery of threatened and endangered species. 

Humpback whales is a great example. For a long time in Virginia, 

you would never see a humpback whale off the coast. Now we have 

whale watching trips; people pay money to go off of Virginia Beach 

and see humpback whales in the wintertime. It is a great thing. 

Last week I was down in far southwest Virginia on a trip with 

The Nature Conservancy and some local partners who are working 

with the Fish and Wildlife Service and others to recover a number 

of threatened and endangered mussel species on the Clinch River. 

It is a really fascinating effort because these mussels, when they 

are recovered, they filter 10 gallons of water a day. 

So, when you have a few of them in the river, your river is not 

going to be really clean. When you have thousands of them in the 

river, your water quality is going to be much better. That is improving water quality that supports one of the best trophies—small 

mouth bass fisheries—in the country, and people are coming from 

far and wide to participate in that fishery, to participate in water 

sports and things like that. 

This is a river system that was decimated by the vestiges of pollution related to the coal industry only a decade or so ago, and we 

have really brought it back, and now we are seeing tourism pop up 

around the recovery and the restoration efforts that are made possible and driven by endangered species recovery. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Broscheid, a last quick comment. Anything 

you want to mention with an eye toward helping steer us toward 

some kind of principal compromise on what is a difficult issue, important issue. In closing, quick thought? 

Mr. BROSCHEID. Senator, thank you very much. 

I agree. I think as far as the West goes and the State of Colorado, half the State is private and half is mixed Federal land, along 

with some State trust lands out there. It gets complicated. 

The old saying is habitat is where it’s at; that’s where the species 

live. And if you can work toward habitat conservation, you will 

likely have recovery of species, of a suite of species that reside in 

the habitat. But that is not necessarily the case all the time. 

Sage-grouse is a perfect example. We have a population that is 

Gunnison sage-grouse that is located mostly in the Gunnison Basin 

and small parts of Utah. We have conserved, at the time of the listing, warranted listing, 85 percent of that habitat, working with 

local governments, the Federal agencies, and those entities to secure 85 percent of that habitat. The bird was still listed as threatVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:01 Oct 24, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00380 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\31426.TXT SONYA
375 

ened, despite already a discussion or decision by the Service that 

that would be needed. 

I think my point is that birds will fluctuate, and anybody who 

does bird hunt knows 1 year you may have a great year, and the 

next couple maybe not. Birds do that naturally. This is the information that is coming out of the science that we are starting to 

learn. So, securing the habitat doesn’t necessarily mean that species will recover; we have to include in there what the scientific 

and daily needs of that species are. But it does get trickier when 

you add in a significant amount of Federal land, private land, and 

State lands within the borders of a State. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Just very briefly, the same question. A word of advice for counsel 

as we look for principal compromise on what is an important issue, 

but a difficult issue, Mr. Strickler. 

Mr. STRICKLER. I apologize, Senator. Could you just repeat the 

question? 

Senator CARPER. I asked Mr. Broscheid, a word of advice, as we 

conclude here today, for us as we look for some kind of principal 

compromise on what is admittedly an important, but difficult issue. 

Mr. STRICKLER. Sure. I think I would just add a little bit of insight to continuing answering your previous question on the economics of species recovery. 

As we look at protecting these habitats and these ecosystems 

that support threatened and endangered species, we are also protecting and conserving land that has multiple uses. The outdoor 

recreation economy is huge business, almost $1 trillion in annual 

consumer spending in the United States. That is about $22 billion 

in Virginia alone. 

We, as the Commonwealth, have a land conservation strategy 

that focuses on biodiversity conservation and multiple uses, watershed protection, things like that. When you have those kinds of 

synergies, you can protect threatened and endangered species, and 

also get economic benefits. 

I think the last point I would make is if the Committee would 

just keep in mind the significant interest that States like Virginia, 

that unfortunately have, through mismanagement, lost a lot of our 

iconic wildlife species decades and centuries ago, but don’t take for 

granted what you have, when you have it, as far as iconic wildlife. 

Our folks have to travel all the way across the country to see bison 

or elk or mountain lions, and that used to not be the case. But the 

places where they do exist are special because they exist, not in 

spite of them. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Thank you both very, very much. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, those special places are called Wyoming, so thank you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. And there is a Wyoming in Delaware, just south 

of Dover, Camden, Wyoming. 

Senator BARRASSO. Director Broscheid, just a couple quick 

things. 

Title 1 of this discussion draft is intended to really make States 

equal partners in implementing the Endangered Species Act. Some 

376 

defenders of the status quo claim that States can’t really adequately conserve wildlife or really don’t have interest to do so. The 

Sierra Club actually went so far as to say authority over wildlife 

decisions to often hostile State management, is their phraseology 

about the bill. 

I think you have served in high level positions both in the Colorado Parks and Wildlife and in the Arizona Game and Fish Departments. Are States hostile to protecting wildlife in their States? 

What is your experience? 

Mr. BROSCHEID. Mr. Chairman, I think hostile is a strong word. 

I think it is more of frustration. I think the frustration comes 

from—and the Governor alluded to this a lot earlier—it is created 

by uncertainty in decisionmaking processes. You are told something, this is the best science of conservation, and then as you start 

marching down the road spending millions and millions of dollars 

that you probably don’t have, and then to have those goal posts 

move constantly, it creates a frustration to a point that folks that 

you have to work with toward conservation. It makes private landowners, it makes even individuals in Federal land management 

agencies, as well as the Fish and Wildlife Service, very frustrated 

when, at the end of the day, a lot of these decisions are being decided in courts and judges are making these decisions, whether 

there is science in that decision or not. 

It is really borne out of our frustration, Mr. Chairman, I think, 

where you see some States that may have constructive criticism for 

the Act. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, I appreciate everyone being here today. 

The hearing has been very useful in outlining the need to modernize the Endangered Species Act in a manner that I think captures the expanded conservation capacity and expertise of our 

States around the country. I think we need to move beyond the 

current failing policy of listing species and then leaving them on 

life support. 

Over the weekend, Eric Vance, a Maryland based science writer, 

editorialized about endangered species in the Washington Post. The 

headline—this is page A15, Saturday, July 14th—‘‘We Are Losing 

the Fight to Save Endangered Species.’’ And he stated, ‘‘Modern 

conservation is increasingly about maintaining insanely thin populations with shallow gene pools.’’ He said, ‘‘Not only is this expensive and often futile, but also it undermines the whole point of 

wildlife management.’’ 

That is how today’s Endangered Species Act operates. For 30 

years defenders of the status quo have prevented prior Congresses 

and Administrations from improving the law, so I believe we need 

to act. We need the Endangered Species Act to work better. 

I appreciate the Western Governors Association to come together 

on a bipartisan basis; done an excellent job identifying the policies 

that we can adopt to do just that. 

Now it is our turn. I look forward to working across the aisle 

with members who will join me in using the Western Governors 

Association’s bipartisan work to make the Endangered Species Act 

work better for both wildlife and for people. 

So, I appreciate your being here today. 

377 

Members may submit follow up questions for the record. The 

hearing record will be open for the next 2 weeks. 

I want to thank all of the witnesses today for your time and testimony, especially Governor Mead. Grateful that you would take 

the time to be with us to share your thoughts, your experience, 

your leadership. We are very grateful and appreciative. 

With that, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:41 a.m. the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

378 


31426.340
379 


31426.341
380 


31426.342
381 


31426.343
382 


31426.344
383 


31426.345
384 


31426.346
385 


31426.347
386 


31426.348
387 


31426.349
388 

Æ 


31426.350