Date: 1987-12-11
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. the Endangered Species Act is an important piece of legislation which has served to protect the diversity of this Nations abundant natural resources. Many years ago when this Chamber first approved the act. it was with the realization that animal life in many of its forms could no longer flourish nor survive merely on its own fortunes. Our intervention was necessaryand this remains so. The Endangered Species Act reflects the degree to which this Nation has become enlightened about the role of plants and animals in contributing to the stability of our natural resources. It is an important conservation measure which warrants the continued support of this body. I would like to address two issues that have arisen regarding the reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act. They are a new pesticide labeling program being implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency to bring the pesticide program into compliance with the Endangered Species Act and the required used of turtle excluder devices [TEDs] by shrimpers in the Gulf of[Mexico. EPA is now attempting to bring its pesticide program into compliance with the Endangered Species Act by requiring changes in the labels of certain pesticides that may be harming endangered species. Labels on pesticides whose use may harm a federally listed endangered species will be modified to include information on the counties in which the products use would be restricted to avoid affecting the species of plant or animal. The label would direct the pesticide user to refer to additional information on the specific areas where the pesticides use would be restricted in the county. Information. including maps specifying where the species is located. would be available where the pesticides are purchased. EPA is reviewing the pesticides in groups or clusters according to their use and has identified certain pesticides used on agricultural crops. range and pasturelands. forests. and mosquito larvacides that would be affected. These clusters were chosen because the ma jority of endangered species jeopardy opinions received by EPA are for pesticides associated with these uses. Approximately 900 counties nationwide are likely to be affected by this program. Texas is one of four states that has more than 50 counties affected. When this program was first announced. there was a great deal of confusion and frustration. particularly on the part of farmers and forest landowners whose operations were located where endangered species appeared to reside. However. during the past few months. we have made great progress in clarifying how and when the program will be implemented and in obtaining assurances that EPA will work with USDA and the Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct this program in a reasonable and efficient manner. EPA had intended to fully implement this program effective February 1. 1988. however the agency has now backed off this target date and is instead requesting that affected States provide EPA with a timetable for implementing the program in their States. In several meetings with officials of EPA. USDA. and the Fish and Wildlife Service. I have received assurances that the States will be afforded the opportunity to develop their own endangered species/pesticides programs and that the Federal agencies affected will coordinate their efforts to assist the States and individuals in complying with the Endangered Species Act. In fact. at my insistence. these officials briefedconcerned members of the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries on how they Would work together to put this program in place. As a result of that meeting. highlevel discussions with senior policy officials of the Fish and Wildlife Service. USDA. and EPA are continuing. I was just informed yesterday that EPA expects that significantly less that 50 percent of the planned program will be ready for field implementation in 1988. In fact. a decision may be made to place a complete hold on the program for 1988. EPA has also committed that they will not implement any portion of the program that has problems. particularly regarding the accuracy of county maps designating areas where pesticide uses may be restricted. EPA continues to work with interested and affected parties to work out details of the program. At present. the Fish and Wildlife Service has convened a staff group to resolve problems and inconsistencies with the biological opinions related to pesticide impacts on endangered species. This is to ensure that the information EPA is working with is consistent and scientifically sound. Working with USDA. EPA is also examining alternatives to prohibition of the use of certain pesticides In areas containing endangered species. This effort Is intended to minimize the economic impacts of program implementation on agricultural producersa concern that I and a number of my colleagues have raised with EPA on a number of occasions. I am extremely pleased to see that progress is being made in this regard. In order to expand public understanding of the endangered species pesticide labeling program. EPA is also expanding its public outreach program and has committed to publish a Federal Register Notice by the end of this year to invite public comment and to announce a public meeting on the program to be held in Washington. DC. I am encouraging EPA to expand this effort to include a series of public meetings in various regional offices throughout the country so that those who may be affected can have a chance to voice their concerns. Mr. Chairman. I am pleased with the progress that has been made to slow implementation of this program down to a pace that will ensure that EPA can fulfill its responsibilities for protecting endangered species while doing so in a way that will minimize any negative effects on agricultural producers. The other issue I wish to address today is particularly contentiousthe National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration requirement that shrimp trawlers use turtle excluder devices [TEDs] and in this connection I would wish to go back a number of years to explain my own perspective. Although the plight of endangered sea turtles has come quickly to the forefront as a major conservation question of 1987. my personal involvement extends back many yearsto February 1984. At that time. the administration had requested elimination of a very modest budget item for the National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS]. The appropriation in question amounted to just less than $1 million in the NMFS budget used to operate a unique Head Start Program with endangered Kemps Ridley sea turtles. In early 1984. one constituent of mine in south Texas wrote of her concern for sea turtle preservation. and that is when I began to examine the NMFS budget figures which the administration had recommended. In conjunction with the normal appropriations processes. I worked as best I could to advocate on. behalf of continued funding for this turtle program in Galveston. TX. and we turned the tables around on the administration and ever since 1984 the tiny budget for turtle headstarting has been secured. During late 1984 we visited the NMFS laboratory in Galveston where each year several thousand Kemps Ridley turtles are given the opportunity of reaching maturity in controlled captivity before being released into the Gulf of Mexico. I have for nearly 4 years maintained close contact with both NMFS and the private Houston support group for the Head Start Program. an organization called HEART [Help Endangered AnimalsRidley Turtles]. This cooperative NMFSHEART Program to acquire Ridley eggs from Rancho Nuevo in Mexico and to headstart the turtle hatchings in Galveston represents the best current hope for preservation of Kemps Ridley turtles which are among the most endangered of the several sea turtle species. In my own thinking there is no conflicting. issue herethe sea turtles are an integral part of the marine life system and they must. they will. survive. If they are lost as a species. they are lost forever. Perhaps it is this fear of losing another precious form of life that has given rise to the current debate over the role of the shrimp trawl in sea turtle mortality figures. We are. in effect. debating today the future of two. not one. endangered species. The Nations shrimp harvesting industry has been facing economic troubles during this decade as it attempts to compete with foreign imports. fuel oil costs. and exorbitant marine insurance billsjust to name a few of the factors hitting hard on the shrimpers. It is my feeling that sea turtle preservation and shrimp industry success are not conflicting objectiveswe do not need to choose between the two in our actions this day. We have before us a plan to delay the use of TEDs on shrimp trawis and those who adamantly oppose this delay are those Who believe that shrimpers are responsible for significant turtle mortality. This word "significant" is key to our work today. The yeas and nays may hinge on the extent to which the mortality data can convince us beyond any shadow of doubt. This Congressman recognizes the conflicting numbers on net captures and mortality that have been issued. and in this connection a delay in the use of the TED which has been suggested today might give our marine science community and the relevant Federal regulators the opportunity to issue forth a set. of statistics that can win the confidence of all connected with sea turtle preservation and shrimp industry health. We are aware of many factors that contribute to the decline of sea turtles: habitat destruction. poaching on turtle nesting beaches. oil drilling platform removal by dynamiteand others. It is important to realize that shrimpers should not be singled out as the principal cause of sea turtle decline. The data are ambivalent on this question. and those who have collected this data readily avow the use of statistical extrapolation in reaching certain conclusions. As I mentioned to NOAA in my written commentary on the TED propqsal. we simply cannot wholeheartedly support something based not on hard numbers. but only on mathematical projections. Our marine science community can easily make a case for habitat destruction as the primary cause of turtle and other marine life mortality. So in the fall of this year. I vigorously supported H.R. 940 to prohibit plastics dumping in the territorial waters of the United States as a way of addressing this issue of habitat degradation. It is a beginning. We will do more in that vein. But I ask this Chamber to assist the other endangered species. the shrimpers. so that they may continue to earn their livelihood and put food upon our tables. The sea is their livelihood. It is not in the nature of those who live on the sea to wish her any abuse. The shrimpers do not want to snag turtles in their netsand I want to very clearly say that my own long association with the Texas shrimp industry has proven to me that these men and women have a full understanding of the critical need to preserve the marine habitat as a way of preserving their own livelihood. The proposed delay in TED usage has as its rationale the need to develop a consensus on how to address all factors that contribute to sea turtle mortality. Let us avoid the temptation to lay the first blame at the doorstep of those whose very incomes and fortunes depend on the health of the oceans and the creatures which inhabit them. It is a temptation I would hope we resist. The purposes of the Endangered Species Act will be better served by a more concerned effort at developing sea turtle statistics that can be supported by all involved. The purposes of the act will not be wisely served by asking our shrimpers to do something that is clothed in numerical controversy. uncertainty and equivocation. We can do better than this for both the shrimper and the turtle. It behooves us to determine more precisely what it is that will directly affect the future of the sea turtle whose survival is in all our interests.