<DOC>
[108 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:91498.wais]
S. Hrg. 108-346
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE:
FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES,
WILDLIFE, AND WATER
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED BUDGET FOR THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
__________
MARCH 18, 2003
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
91-498 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
one hundred eighth congress
first session
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri MAX BAUCUS, Montana
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio HARRY REID, Nevada
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
JOHN CORNYN, Texas BARBARA BOXER, California
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
Andrew Wheeler, Majority Staff Director
Ken Connolly, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska MAX BAUCUS, Montana
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming RON WYDEN, Oregon
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MARCH 18, 2003
OPENING STATEMENTS
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 5
Crapo, Hon. Michael D., U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho..... 1
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 4
Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.. 2
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska...... 4
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming....... 8
WITNESS
Williams, Hon. Steven A., Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior; accompanied by Hon.
Marshall Jones, Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 7
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Baucus........................................... 30
Senator Crapo............................................ 24
Senator Graham........................................... 29
Senator Inhofe........................................... 30
Senator Jeffords......................................... 32
Senator Murkowski........................................ 33
(iii)
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE:
FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:01 a.m.in
room 406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. Michael D. Crapo
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Senators Crapo, Thomas, and Jeffords [ex officio].
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL D. CRAPO, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF IDAHO
Senator Crapo. The hearing will come to order.
Good morning. This is the hearing on the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service budget of the Fisheries, Wildlife and Water
Subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee.
I welcome everybody. First, I want to apologize for the
fact that the hearing has been delayed for one hour. I know
that that has caused everybody to alter their schedules. It
probably will cause us to have a lower attendance at the
hearing because other Senators' schedules have not been able to
be changed accordingly.
In fact, one of the things that has delayed this hearing is
the fact that we have the budget on the floor of the Senate
right now, as well as a number of other issues going forward,
that will cause most of the Senators who would otherwise have
been here to have to readjust their schedules the best they can
and be elsewhere as well.
But, in any event, I appreciate that you, Mr. Williams and
Mr. Jones, adjusted your schedules to make yourselves available
on such short notice with our changed scheduling.
I should say that, for those members of the subcommittee
who could not make it today, we will be certain to make sure
their statements can be submitted for the record and provide
the Fish and Wildlife Service with any written questions that
subcommittee members who aren't able to be here would like to
submit to you for answers in writing.
Today the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water
will hear testimony from Steven A. Williams, the Director of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and I understand that
joining you, Mr. Williams, will be Marshall Jones, the Deputy
Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Mr. Jones, we
welcome you with us here as well.
This subcommittee, in my opinion, is long overdue in its
oversight of the Service's budget. The budget justifications
that each agency publishes are very useful tools for
understanding the request levels, the priorities, and the
policy direction that the agency and the Congress are giving to
the issues under the jurisdiction of the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
I did want to note that, as often happens to us, the
documents that we need for this process which are critical for
examining the agency's plans and spending priorities were very
late in getting to the committee. This is an issue which we
deal with constantly in terms of needing the materials we need
for review with the committee. Without these budget
justifications, it is very difficult for members of the staff
and the committee members to prepare for budget hearings and
reviews like this.
Most of us got the green books just late Friday afternoon.
I would expect that in the future we won't see that kind of
delays or situations where we face several hundred-page
documents to deal with just a few days before a hearing.
For several years now, the Fish and Wildlife Service has
been forced to dedicate a significant portion of its Endangered
Species Act-related budget to resolving court orders and court-
approved deadlines as a result of litigation. The vast majority
of this litigation is aimed at procedural aspects of the
Endangered Species Act, not substantive protections or recovery
actions.
If preventing extinction and recovering species is truly
the goal of this law, then we have our work cut out for us
because the Fish and Wildlife Service has very little in the
way of discretionary funds to prioritize species with the
greatest needs or those who would benefit the most from
conservation actions. Instead, the courts, rather than
biologists, drive the species which need attention because of
the litigation.
It has been a long time since we have had a serious
discussion with regard to the Endangered Species Act and its
reform. For far too long, the ESA has been insufficient in its
implementation and ineffective at accomplishing its objectives,
but there simply hasn't been a political will to make the
changes necessary to improve it.
Whether it's the designation of critical habitat, the
Section 7 consultation process, or habitat conservation
planning, there are many components of the Actthat were good
ideas in theory, but just have not been working in practice.
It is appropriate to hold the subcommittee's first hearing
on this budget because the budget priorities reflect, in my
opinion, many of the failures of the Endangered Species Act.
Although I am a critic with regard to much of the Endangered
Species Act and the way it is being implemented, I certainly
recognize that there are many successful programs that the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service does carry out, including the
National Wildlife Refuge System.
Just last Friday, the Refuge System celebrated its 100th
anniversary at the place where it started, Pelican Island,
Florida. The Refuge System has been enormously successful in
conserving wildlife habitat in this country. We need to find
solutions that will make the threatened and endangered species
a success story, just as the Wildlife Refuge System has been.
I intend to ask a lot of pragmatic questions about the
Endangered Species Act and to introduce legislation to foster
debate during this Congress. The only way to sustain our
Nation's fish and wildlife and its plants is to make sure that
the Endangered Species Act works better for species and for
people. It is my hope that this committee will address the
failures of the Endangered Species Act through the practical
reforms that we will propose.
Director Williams, again, we appreciate your joining us,
and following the introductory statement of Senator Jeffords,
we will proceed with your testimony.
Senator Jeffords?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
Senator Jeffords. Thank you, Senator Crapo. I would like to
join you in welcoming the Assistant Secretary, Steve Williams.
I think this is the first time he has appeared before this
committee since his confirmation hearing.
Last week's celebration of the Centennial of the National
Wildlife Refuge System is a testament to the fine work of the
Fish and Wildlife Service. In these difficult fiscal times, the
Service budget request for the year 2004 is nearly $4 million
more than requested last year. While I have concerns about some
of the funding requests and reductions, I am confident that the
Service's request will focus us on their mission to work to
conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and their
plants, and their habitats for the benefits to the American
people.
We need to continue to protect and conserve our valuable
resources by committing adequate fiscal resources to get the
job done. I look forward to your testimony.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Senator Jeffords, and I
indicated, before you arrived, I apologized for the
inconvenience in having to readjust the timing for our hearing
today, but I appreciate your adjusting your schedule and being
able to be here.
Senator Jeffords. No problem.
Senator Crapo. Before we turn to you, Mr. Williams, I have
been asked by Senator Inhofe, the chairman of the full
committee, to read a brief statement. This will give you an
indication of one concern he has with your budget.
So on behalf of Senator Inhofe, I would like to read the
following statement. He has been detained, and because of the
change in the timing of the hearing, has not been able to make
it himself personally. His statement reads:
Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed expanding the Ozark
Plateau National Wildlife Refuge in northeast Oklahoma by
nearly 12,000 acres. This proposal has been met with opposition
from many local citizens.
I am currently opposed to this proposal, as I am concerned
about how the Refuge's expansion would impact the area's tax
base. In tough economic times such as this, I cannot support an
initiative that would potentially harm the local communities.
What is the current status of this proposal and what can be
done to address those concerns? And is it true that some of the
money for the Refuge may come from funds set aside for the Tar
Creek remediation?
Thank you, and I would appreciate a response at your
earliest convenience.
Senator Crapo. I am certain that we can get you a written
copy of this statement, so you have the questions that Senator
Inhofe has asked, so you can respond to him on that.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the State of
Oklahoma
I would like to welcome Director Steven Williams for coming today
to discuss the proposed budget for the Fish and Wildlife Service. It
has been some time since the committee has held such a hearing, and I
am looking forward to hearing from you regarding the funding of some of
the projects at the Fish and Wildlife Service.
However, I would first like to bring to your attention a problem
back in my State of Oklahoma. The Fish and Wildlife Service has
proposed expanding the Ozark Plateau National Wildlife Refuge in
northeast Oklahoma by nearly 12,000 acres. This proposal has been met
with opposition from many local citizens. I am currently opposed to
this proposal as I am concerned about how the refuge's expansion would
impact the area's tax base. In tough economic times such as this, I
cannot support an initiative that would potentially harm the local
communities. What is the current status of this proposal and what can
be done to address these concerns? Additionally, is it true that some
of the money for the refuge may come from funds set aside for the Tar
Creek remediation?
As I have stated in the past, I am a strong believer in cost-
benefit analysis and strong science. It is critical that we get the
most from our money, and I feel it is important to promote programs
that have a proven track record. I am pleased that the Service has
demonstrated a commitment to providing performance information to
highlight projects that deserve additional funding. By knowing which
projects work best, we can strengthen proven investments.
As this year is the centennial anniversary of the National Wildlife
Refuge System, I am pleased by the renewed commitment to our nation's
natural heritage and support the $25.5 million increase in requested
funding from fiscal year 2003. It is my understanding that there is
currently a tremendous maintenance backlog for current refuges.
Hopefully, this increase will assist in alleviating this problem.
Additionally, there are a number of partnership programs that I
feel are extremely important. There is one in particular I would like
to bring to the committee's attention the Partners for Fish and
Wildlife program. This is a voluntary initiative that works with local
landowners, the people who work and know the land, to help promote
habitat restoration projects on their property. And I am pleased that
the budget request increases funding for this program by $38 million.
I would also like to take this opportunity to express my concern
with the difficulties the military has faced as a result of the
Endangered Species Act. The Armed Services have acted as stewards of
their lands. As a direct result, the property where they train has
become home to a number of endangered species. Unfortunately, ESA has
become an obstacle to training our men and women who so bravely protect
this nation. These obstacles could cost the lives of those who serve
us--this is completely unacceptable. I believe that military
encroachment is a serious issue that must be dealt with now.
As we are on the brink of war with Iraq, military readiness is more
critical than ever. Unfortunately, the ability to train our troops has
become limited due to current environmental law. This problem will only
get worse over time unless addressed immediately. Already the Armed
Services train in fear of a court ordered injunction as a result of
environmental litigation--litigation that seeks to extend current law
beyond what was intended by Congress.
The proposed Department of Defense legislation would not exempt the
military from the Endangered Species Act. The Armed Services would use
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans, or INRMPs, in
coordination with the Fish and Wildlife Service, in place of critical
habitat designations. Our service men and women risk their lives to
preserve the freedoms this nation holds dear. At the very least, they
deserve the best available training.
[The prepared statement of Senator Murkowski follows:]
Statement of Hon. Lisa Murkowski, U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Williams, for coming
this morning. I am looking forward with great interest to your comments
on the Fiscal Year 2004 budget of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
As you know, the activities of the Fish & Wildlife Service are
important to all residents of Alaska, and often become highly
controversial, as the Service struggles to balance the variety of
interests it must serve.
Mr. Chairman, you may recall that my State of Alaska is one of
those western States that is dominated by a pattern of Federal land
ownership which makes doing business a very different experience than
in States that are dominated by privately held lands. The Federal
government owns 65% of the land mass of the State of Alaska a figure
equaled only by your own State of Idaho and exceeded only by Nevada.
Among other elements, Alaska has the sometimes dubious distinction
of hosting fully 88% of the total acreage of the National Wildlife
Refuge System. We have one refuge the Yukon Delta which is the size of
the State of Maine. Although we have only 4% of the Refuge System's
more than 500 components, we have more than 88% of the total acreage.
In fact, by the time all land conveyances under the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act are complete, the Refuge system will own more
than one-fifth of my State more than 120,000 square miles of land equal
to the entire State of New Mexico.
The Service's influence on Alaska does not stop with its management
of Refuges, of course. It is intimately involved with the day to day
lives of Alaskans as it manages subsistence fishing and hunting
activities under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.
Its involvement in the land-use permitting process is one of the keys
to whether Alaska will ever enjoy the benefits of efficient
transportation, energy distribution, and communications systems. In
short, it has a very significant effect on the ability of individual
Alaskans to earn their livelihoods from one day to the next, and its
impact can run the gamut from a soft pat to a harsh blow.
Finally, let me note that I understand you have recently named Mr.
Rowan Gould to be the new director of the Alaska region. I look forward
to meeting him in a few days, and to working with you both in the
months ahead.
[The prepared statement of Senator Baucus follows:]
Statement of Hon. Max Baucus, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this important hearing on the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's budget. The activities of the Fish and
Wildlife Service have a tremendous impact on my State and I appreciate
the opportunity to discuss some important funding issues with our only
witness today, the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Steve Williams.
First, I was pleased to hear from Director Williams that the
Service will move ahead with its final rule to down-list the gray wolf
to threatened status. Gray wolf recovery efforts have been a success.
Wolf populations in the Northern Rockies are now healthy and growing.
It just makes sense to implement the Endangered Species Act as
intended, which means removing the wolf from the list of threatened and
endangered species, and returning management control over the wolf back
to the States.
I was particularly pleased that the final rule will allow for
increased management flexibility for State and federal wildlife
officials in order to reduce conflicts between wolves and livestock.
However, Montanans are anxious to begin managing the wolf themselves.
Because the gray wolf recovery program has been such a success, and
wolf populations are so healthy, we've seen more and more wolves in
Montana. This raises more and more concerns about livestock
depredations, or attacks on domestic pets. It's past time for Montana
to take over full management responsibility for the wolf. That means
de-listing the wolf in Montana and/or the Northern Rockies region, or
providing some other regulatory mechanism that would allow this to
happen.
Montana has developed a wolf management plan that, from what I
understand, is very good. Yet, Montana has to wait as the Service moves
forward with a proposed plan to delist the wolf nation-wide. The
Northern Rockies, and a few other States such as Minnesota, have born
the brunt of wolf recovery efforts. We have healthy populations right
now. I don't see why we can't move forward to delist the wolf in these
areas where we have healthy populations, so that the States can have
the flexibility and authority that they need to best manage wolf
populations for the benefit of their citizens.
I know that Montana has concerns about the financial costs of
assuming management of the wolf, and that is a legitimate concern. This
is an issue that I'd like to continue to explore with the Service as we
move towards giving management of the wolf back to Montana.
In general, Mr. Williams, I'd like to raise several concerns with
you about the status of Fish and Wildlife funding and staffing levels
in Montana and Region 6. During your confirmation hearing, I asked you
to look into the fact that Montana seems to have received the very,
very short end of the stick when it comes to the Fish and Wildlife
Service's staffing and budget. I asked your immediate supervisor, Craig
Manson, and the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Lynn Scarlett, the
same thing. Everyone promised to look into this problem. So far,
nothing has happened. I received a short note from Ms. Scarlett over a
year ago, telling me that the situation warranted a closer look by the
Service and the Department of Interior, but again, nothing has
happened.
Mr. Chairman, this situation is getting out of hand. Montana has
only 18 permanent and 5 one-year term Fish and Wildlife Service
ecological services employees. That's it, for the entire State. To
cover millions of acres of Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management
and other federal lands, and countless activities that occur across the
State on private and State lands.
Activities in Montana that could potentially or actually impact
endangered, threatened or other sensitive species include: timber
harvests and hazardous fuels reduction projects, irrigation
development, coal mine development and expansion, new or expanded coal
and gas fired power plants, new hyrdoelectric generating facilities,
highway projects, airport facilities, sewage treatment plants and
cellular tower placements. Many if not all of these activities could
require some level of consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service,
to address or reduce impacts to fish and wildlife.
I am very concerned when I hear that the Service may not be able to
meet all of the demands placed upon it just by other federal agencies,
particularly by the Forest Service. We're working hard in Montana to
preserve natural resource jobs, particularly jobs in Montana's timber
industry. It is imperative that the Service provide adequate staff to
assist the Forest Service in its efforts to manage timber resources,
reduce hazardous fuels in our National Forests, and protect and enhance
habitat for endangered and threatened species.
Mr. Chairman, Montana is a growing State, and we're trying hard to
continue to grow our economy, to provide more and better paying jobs
for the citizens of our State. That means more projects, more
improvements, more activity, and more potential for conflicts with fish
and wildlife recovery goals.
As Montanans, we prize our first-class landscapes, our pristine
rivers and streams. We're proud of our outdoor heritage and our
abundant fish and wildlife. We don't believe that economic growth and
protecting fish and wildlife and their habitat are mutually exclusive
goals. Our farmers and ranchers are good stewards of their lands.
But, a lack of resources has made it awfully hard for the Fish and
Wildlife Service to respond in a proactive way to Montanans' needs or
the needs of our fish and wildlife populations. There's only so much
that 18 full-time, permanent employees can do, in a State the size of
Montana, with as many endangered, threatened and other sensitive
species that we have, including grizzly bears, wolves, lynx, bull
trout, sage grouse, prairie dogs, Yellowstone cutthroat trout, fluvial
arctic grayling, sturgeon, and the list goes on. We need more people;
that's just common sense.
More people means important federal, State and private sector
projects more forward more quickly, more efficiently, and that
potential problems are addressed up front. More people means the
Service can work more pro-actively with the State and local land-owners
on species conservation efforts, to avoid the need to list a particular
species, or to help land-owners cope with the presence of an endangered
or threatened species on their property. For instance, a few Service
employees have done wonderful things working with ranchers and local
citizens along the Blackfoot River in Montana to improve habitat for
bull trout.
The needed investment by the Department of Interior and the Service
in these kinds of efforts is minimal when compared to the long-term
benefits to species and to the citizens of this country, in terms of
enhanced wildlife habitat, healthier forests, reduced conflicts,
continued economic growth, and fewer lawsuits.
My sense that the State of Montana has been treated unfairly here
only grows when I look at the uneven distribution of Service staff and
resources in other States and regions, including three new offices and
over 90 ecological services employees in Oregon, and well over 100
ecological services employees in the State of Washington. This
difference in staffing levels is just striking. I would like to explore
this issue further with Director Williams.
Mr. Chairman, I have worked hard in the past to propose common
sense reforms to the ESA, in order to help the Fish and Wildlife
Service and other agencies implement the Act more effectively, and with
greater sensitivity to the needs of private landowners and States. I
was proud of these efforts and the efforts of many of my colleagues on
this committee. But, no matter what may or may not happen with ESA
reform this Congress or in any other Congress, we have to adequately
fund the Fish and Wildlife Service, and we have to put adequate staff
where it's needed the most.
I am pleased that the Administration has proposed overall increases
in the Fish and Wildlife Service's budget for fiscal year 2004 over
previous budget requests. However, I believe we can do much more, and I
will explore this more specifically with Director Williams in the
questions I submit for the record.
Thank you again Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing; and thank
you, Director Williams, for taking the time to testify today.
Senator Crapo. With that, Mr. Williams, please proceed with
your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. STEVEN A. WILLIAMS, DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED
BY HON. MARSHALL JONES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE
Mr. Williams. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Senator Jeffords, I
do appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today and
report on the administration's fiscal year 2004 budget request
for the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Before I discuss our budget request, I would like to
mention our recent decision to down-list gray wolves throughout
much of its range. Wolves are coming back, and their new status
highlights our progress toward recovering them across their
range. Our final rule will give us greater management
flexibility for most gray wolf populations, as we work toward
removing gray wolf populations from the list of endangered and
threatened species.
I would now like to highlight a few items in our fiscal
year 2004 budget request, starting with the Endangered Species
Program. The 2004 request is $3 million above the 2003 request
level. An increase of $3.2 million is required to address the
growing listing program litigation-driven workload. This
additional funding is necessary to address listing actions
required by court orders or settlement agreements.
Additional high-priority recovery actions, including
immediate actions needed to stabilize critically-imperiled
species and actions that could lead to delisting newly
recovered species, will be implemented nationwide with an
additional $2 million over the 2003 request.
We are requesting $103.6 million to implement the fisheries
program's vision for the future through increased funding for
hatchery operations and hatchery maintenance and increased
emphasis on aquatic invasive species. This request will help to
do more for aquatic resources and the people who value and
depend on them through enhanced partnerships, scientific
integrity, and a balanced approach to conservation.
Significant funding increases will support high-priority
needs of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Last year the
President's budget requested the largest increase in the
system's history to celebrate the Refuge System's centennial
earlier this month. This year the administration request builds
on that substantial increase with another $25.5 million.
To date, our Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program has
worked with 28,700 private landowners through voluntary
partnerships to implement on-the-ground habitat restoration
projects covering approximately 360,000 acres across the
country. We are requesting an additional $9.1 million in the
2004 request to increase the program's capabilities to enter
into meaningful partnerships resulting in on-the-ground habitat
restoration accomplishments.
A $3 million increase for the Joint Venture Program will
provide a total of $10.4 million or full funding for that
program. As of December 2002, partners have contributed
approximately $1.5 billion to protect, restore, or enhance
almost 5 million acres of U.S. wetlands, grasslands, forests,
and repairing habitat.
Our law enforcement program would hire nine additional
Wildlife Inspectors to interdict and deter the illegal trade in
protected species. In addition, manatee protection efforts will
be accelerated in Florida by protecting manatees from boat
strikes and enforcing speed zones in refuges and sanctuary
areas with a $0.5 million increase.
The President's 2004 budget continues to support active
participation on the part of the States and other partners in
resource conservation efforts. To this end, the budget provides
$247 million for five Service grant programs that facilitate
State and local conservation efforts.
The budget includes $50 million to continue the Landowner
Incentive and Private Stewardship Programs. We are requesting
$86.6 million for the Cooperative Endangered Species
Conservation Fund. Our budget includes $60 million, including
$5 million for a tribal set-aside, for State and tribal
wildlife grants.
In addition, we requested $50 million for the North
American Wetlands Conservation Fund. This fund protects and
restores wetland ecosystems that serve as habitat and resting
areas for migratory game and non-game birds and supports non-
regulatory private/public investments.
I thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. We
appreciate the committee's interest and support, and I look
forward to working with you in the future.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Williams.
Senator Thomas, did you want to make an opening statement
before we begin the questioning?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Thomas. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I
wanted to focus, and I will ask a question in a little bit, on
the Endangered Species thing. In Wyoming, of course, we have a
good deal of that, and I have been a little surprised lately to
get information that during the 30 years we've had about 1,800
species enrolled on the Endangered Listed with about 15
recovered.
Now I see in the budget, apparently, you have increased the
amount of money for listing and reduced the amount for
recovery. It just seems to me like that's the wrong emphasis,
and it certainly has shown up to be the wrong emphasis in
Wyoming with regard to grizzly bears, with regard to wolves,
and a number of others.
So I just will share that and would have some questions
about it, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Crapo. All right, thank you.
Mr. Williams, I will ask a question first, and my question,
as you might guess, is in the area of the Endangered Species
Act. You, obviously, are getting from a number of us concerns
about the budget allocations in terms of that.
One of the greatest stated needs of the Service, and, in
fact, that's true with regard to the previous administration's
Fish and Wildlife Service as well, is the need to address the
train wreck that the ESA's listing and critical habitat
designation system faces. In your opinion, why is the system
broken down and what can be done to address the failure?
Mr. Williams. Early on in the history of the Endangered
Species Act, a lot of attention was paid to dealing with
petitions to list and listing decisions. At that time, for a
number of reasons, the review of petitions to list and listing
decisions were done without, for the most part, designating
critical habitat, which the law requires. As a result, we
received numerous lawsuits and continue to be involved in
numerous lawsuits challenging this and demanding the
designation of critical habitat.
The actual designation process itself is time-consuming. It
consumes quite an amount of staff time in trying to put
together biologically significant and legally defensible
critical habitat designations. So we have a bit of a backlog
that's caught up with us.
In terms of designating critical habitat, it is
particularly difficult for certain species, where there's not a
lot of information known about that species, at the time of the
listing. As we're learning more about particular species, like
its life history, and so on, designating critical habitat at
the time of its listing is very difficult.
In a nutshell, we have really had a couple of things going
on. One is increased lawsuits requiring us to designate
critical habitat, inadequate resources to deal with listing
petitions, and the developing critical habitat designations,
and some of the timeframes in the Endangered Species Act. Given
the workload that we're currently under, it is difficult for us
to comply.
We had hoped to, and had put into plan, a process, a system
to prioritize our actions in terms of what species to list when
and which are the higher priority, to try to match up our
duties with the funds that we have. Unfortunately, court
rulings have negated our ability to prioritize on a biological
basis, and the avalanche of lawsuits and settlements that we
have to contend with make it very difficult.
I would just point out to you that we are in settlement
agreements or in the process of settlement agreements where we
have to commit actions of the Service out to 2005, 2006, and in
the very near future we may be having to make commitments out
to 2007 or 2008, because of the limited resources that we have.
So that's kind of the difficult position we find ourselves
in, trying to respond to courts, not having the ability to
prioritize and focus our efforts where we think we should go,
but we're driven largely by lawsuits.
Senator Crapo. Well, thank you. I note from the material
you have provided that, as of the middle of January this year,
the Service's litigation workload is 32 active lawsuits with
respect to 32 species, 35 court orders involving 340 species,
and 26 notices of intent to sue involving 27 species.
As you may be aware, most of the bipartisan congressional
bills addressing critical habitat over the last decade or so
have focused on moving the critical habitat designation phase
of the Endangered Species Act to that period where we actually
know more about the species and have the evaluation concluded
and the recovery process, the planning stage for the recovery
process.
I suspect, given the answer you just gave, that I know what
your answer to this next question will be, but I wanted to ask
it. And that is, do you endorse moving the critical habitat
designation to the recovery planning stage?
Mr. Williams. Senator, I think that makes quite a bit of
sense. As you have said, it is at that time when we are
developing recovery plans that we have a better understanding
of the species' habitat needs.
As a biologist, changing the time or the period when we
would have to do critical habitat designation makes sense from
a biological perspective. I think it also makes sense in terms
of the workload, just the practical workload that we're
required to complete under the Act as it is written now.
There are some, as you well know, that question the
benefits of critical habitat designation, particularly at the
time of listing. So that would be something about which we
would certainly be happy to work with you and this committee.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much. My time for my first
round of questions has expired. Senator Jeffords?
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Mr. Williams, as you probably know, the Department of
Defense is seeking changes to the several environmental laws as
part of the Readiness Initiative in the Department's 2004
authorization bill. One of the proposals would eliminate the
designation of critical habitat on all lands, quote, ``owned or
controlled,'' unquote, by the military if an Integrated
National Resources Management Plan, known as INRMP, has been
developed under the Sikes Act.
However, under the Endangered Species Act, DOD can request
that the Fish and Wildlife Service exclude specific parcels
from critical habitat designations altogether, if the
designation would conflict with training needs under section
4(b)(2) authority or work with the Service to develop a
solution for both training and species protection under Section
7(a)(2).
It seems to me that the current law provides for making
training and critical habitat designation compatible. The
Service's recent report to Congress on the Sikes Act and INRMP
states that, quote, ``The Fish and Wildlife Service has
established effective partnerships with the military services
to facilitate cooperative, collaborative natural resource
management on installations while the military continues to
successfully carry out its missions.''
Do you know of any instances where the existing regulatory
structure did not result in an agreement?
Mr. Williams. I may need to provide an answer for the
record on specifics, but if I could comment just in general on
that. The Act does allow us, in the process of designating
critical habitat, to exclude certain lands where the benefits
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. It also
provides some leeway to recognize management efforts, in this
case INRMPs and the Department of Defense installations, to the
species and provide some flexibility. Although it has and may
continue to be challenged by the courts, these provisions give
us some opportunity to exclude those areas if in the long run
the benefits to the species outweigh including them.
I am not aware at this time of any areas, and specifically
the latter part of your question, to identify any areas
specifically, but we certainly will provide you an answer for
the record, if that is okay.
Senator Jeffords. The Sikes Act requires that INRMPs be
prepared in cooperation with the Service and the State Fish and
Wildlife Services. In addition, the Service must comment on
implementation and effectiveness of INRMPs and be involved in
the formal review process every five years.
In fiscal year 2002, the Service spent 3.1 million hours,
equal to 30 full-time employees, in INRMPs. What is the
Service's budget request for 2004?
Mr. Williams. Excuse me a second.
[Mr. Williams confers with staff.]
Senator if it is okay with you again, we would provide you
a breakdown we have in our budget documents. It would appear in
a variety of accounts. We would have to break that down
specifically to dollars spent working with the Department of
Defense.
Senator Jeffords. I would appreciate it if you would do
that.
Mr. Williams. We are happy to do that.
Senator Jeffords. What would the impact be on the Service's
budget if the DOD proposal wasn't enacted?
Mr. Williams. I'm sorry?
Senator Jeffords. What would the impact on the Service's
budget be if the DOD proposal wasn't enacted?
Mr. Williams. Are you referring to what was in the defense
authorization bill?
Senator Jeffords. Yes.
Mr. Williams. Okay. I don't know that it would have a major
budgetary impact. We are working with, as required by the
language in the bill, working with the Department of Defense to
address their concerns. We have a one-year period to address
their concerns about take under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
I think that is what you are referring to, hopefully.
We have a December 2003 deadline. We are meeting regularly
with the Department of Defense, and I can't envision right now
that that would have a major impact on our budget, but
certainly we appreciate the opportunity to work with them in
this one-year time period, again, that is referenced in the
defense authorization language.
Senator Jeffords. The INRMP proposal.
Mr. Williams. Oh, in the INRMP proposal?
Senator Jeffords. Yes, right.
Mr. Williams. Again, with your indulgence, I think we need
to do a little research on that, and we will provide you a
response for the record.
Senator Jeffords. In fiscal year 2002 the Service was
involved in the development, review, and/or implementation of
INRMPs for 225 military installations. If enacted, what impact
will the DOD proposal have on the existing INRMPs, and how many
species would be impacted?
Mr. Williams. Again, we would be happy to provide you
specifics on that. My personal experience, with working with
INRMPs is from the State perspective, as part of that
partnership with Defense and the Fish and Wildlife Service.
From that experience, the time that we spent working with
Defense I have always considered it as time well spent. A lot
of our Department of Defense lands, as you well know, contain
excellent habitat and also provide habitat for a number of
threatened and endangered species, which sometimes causes
Defense some problems in terms of training and readiness.
But INRMPs, in and of themselves, I think provide an
excellent vehicle for State/Federal cooperation to provide
improved fish and wildlife conservation on those Federal lands.
Personally, I enjoyed my efforts, enjoyed my time, working with
the Department of Defense folks and thought it was time well
spent, again for fish and wildlife conservation within the
States that I have worked.
Senator Jeffords. There are three criteria set out in The
Federal Register that the Fish and Wildlife Service used to
determine whether INRMPs can provide special management for
lands such that the lands no longer meet the definition of
critical habitat. Some have suggested that codifying these
criteria could solve the problem the military says it is trying
to address in the INRMP and critical habitat designation. What
do you think of that suggestion?
Mr. Williams. I would like to have some time to review
that. I have not personally dealt with that, but we certainly
will look into that and consider whether codifying is in the
best interest of the whole process.
Senator Jeffords. I am pleased to see that for the second
year in a row the President is requesting an increase in the
budget for the National Wildlife Refuge System. However, it
appears that the funding will be for operation and maintenance,
not for the establishment of new refuges. Are these proposals
for new refuges? If so, are they being considered for
authorization by the administration?
Mr. Williams. The increase, the $25.5 million that is
requested for an increase in the Refuge System is to deal
specifically with the operation and maintenance and backlog
maintenance on existing refuges. That increase would not be
directed toward the acquisition, whether through fee-simple
acquisition or through easements.
It is, again, coupled with last year's increase, it is our
attempt to take care of the facilities and lands that we
currently own rather than spending that on acquiring additional
lands.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much. Senator Thomas?
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Williams.
We just happened to visit yesterday with the Defense
Department, and they still believe there is a great deal of
work to do. There were, I think, six proposals and only one or
two of those have actually been put into effect. So there is
considerable--and I think you were asked one question. You
might think Camp Pendleton may have a place where you actually
are having some problems both in the back country and on the
coast for landing exercises. I guess it would be pretty hard to
imagine that, if the military needs something for training,
that that wouldn't be made available to them.
Back to the endangered species, what is your emphasis? Is
it just to keep listing more species or is the recovery equally
as important?
Mr. Williams. Senator, our emphasis would like to be on
recovery actions. That is, as I understand it, the ultimate
goal, of course, of the Endangered Species Act is to keep
species from being listed as threatened and endangered and, in
the absence of that, to recover those species that are listed.
The --and I will use the term again--the avalanche of
lawsuits and settlements, court orders, focused on listing and
critical habitat designation has really consumed the majority
of our time and a lot of our funding. We are not in the
position to focus the efforts of those individuals and those
dollars on recovery like we would like to.
This budget does request an additional $2 million for
recovery actions. The problem we find ourselves in is that we
are not able to set the priorities, our priorities. Our
priorities are set largely by the court systems and plaintiffs
that have brought suit against us.
Senator Thomas. I believe your budget is divided between
listing and recovery, and your listing is up and recovery is
down actually.
Mr. Williams. I believe we have a $2 million increase on
the recovery side.
Senator Thomas. I don't agree with you.
Mr. Williams. I'm sorry, Senator. I am comparing it to the
2003 budget request. With the late enactment of the 2003
budget, it is easy to get the figures messed up, and I
apologize for that.
The increase that we are requesting for listing is to just
try to keep our head above water in terms of meeting the court
settlements.
Senator Thomas. No, and I understand what you're saying,
but this has been going on for 30 years. Now there ought to be
some sort of an effort, rather than to just say, ``We're
getting sued.'' Are there changes that need to be made? Are
there changes that need to be made in how it is done, so that
you don't end up--we shouldn't be governing by lawsuits.
Mr. Williams. Well, we share that sentiment. We would be
happy to work, again, with this committee and with Congress to
improve upon the act.
There are a number of areas that, although I do not profess
to be an expert in the act, but a number of areas that are
obvious to me where it might be fruitful for discussion:
listing, critical habitat designation, consultations, and so
on.
Senator Thomas. You know I have a bill in that would seek
to deal a little bit with it. It would require there be more
science and more information in the listing process. This
nominating process is pretty perfunctory. I think we can show
you one, the Preble's mouse in Wyoming, where there obviously
wasn't enough information in the beginning.
So this bill would require more science, more information,
and along at the same time as listing, a plan for recovery. So
that you don't get in the grizzly bear thing, where you have
exceeded the numbers by hundreds, but yet you can't get the
range determined. So do you think that might be helpful?
Mr. Williams. Well, we recognize that oftentimes we don't
have the science that we would like to have. Sometimes a
particularly rare species--I mean, by the very definition, the
rare species, not a lot is known about them. Sometimes the only
science available to us, therefore, becomes the best science
available to us.
We do not have the research capability that I think we need
to fulfill our duties under the Act. I know you are aware that
a few years our research capabilities, our research section,
were moved to the U.S. Geological Survey. So we don't have that
research component within the Service that we had historically.
That calls upon, and we've had numerous discussions in
moving forward on better coordination between the Service and
the U.S. Geological Survey. We do rely heavily, then, in the
absence of our own research capability, on research and work
done at universities, by private consultants, outside
biologists, on peer-reviewed journal articles, on any
information that we can get to help make those decisions on,
again, whether it be listing or critical habit designation, or
what it might be.
But we certainly have a real need for improved science. I
don't know that that would streamline or shorten the time it
would take us to respond to petitions to list or consultations,
under the Act, but certainly it would help us in making better
decisions.
Senator Thomas. You might also want to consider requiring
that the nominees do a little better job and have a little
stiffer requirements in order to submit information and not
make nominating such an easy task.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Williams, my next question was going to be the one that
Senator Thomas just asked, although I would just comment at
this point. Obviously, there's a lot of interest on our part
with regard to the designation process and how best science is
used and when the science is available.
I expect that, whether it is through Senator Thomas'
efforts or my own or others, that we will be seeing some
legislative focus on this in this Congress, and, hopefully, we
will be able to provide you some legislative relief in terms of
the ability to more effectively utilize the resources that you
have in your budget for species recovery and the kinds of
things that we all want to see happening.
In that context, I encourage you and your team to focus on
what would be the best solutions; that if you could have
reform, what would those reforms be? And maybe I will turn that
into a question, not for you to answer right now, but perhaps
to just submit a written response on.
If we could do something in the process to try to address
the paralysis that the agency faces through the litigation that
it is dealing with, what would be the best thing we could do at
our level?
Senator Crapo. Now let me go on to another question. On
page 5 of your budget submission, the Service states that your
operational plan will contain new long-term and annual
performance goals and measures to guide the delivery of the
Service program implementation, management reform, and budget
formulation.
We often hear well-grounded comments about that the
regional-level biological opinion supporting Section 7
consultations and determination of mitigation efforts for
section 10 habitat conservation plans are moving forward at a
snail's pace. Considering that, at least with regard to Section
7 consultations, Congress has already set forth a performance
goal, why can't the Service meet the statutory expectations of
the Endangered Species Act? Are these expectations unrealistic?
Mr. Williams. If I could just start out by, hopefully,
putting that question and my answer in context, in 2002 we did
approximately 77,000 consultations, 72,000 of which were
informal consultations and 5,000 formal consultations. I think
in most cases it is safe to say that we have been able to meet
the performance expectations. In some cases I would agree that
we have had difficulty.
There are a number of problems that may lead to that. One
is in certain regional offices, again, the workload that we're
under. In some cases we have received, I will just say it,
inadequate biological assessments upon which we consult and
write biological opinions. In some cases we have received
notice of an initiation of formal consultation, and then some
time elapse, in some cases a lot of time elapse between then
and when we receive the biological assessment, again, upon
which we write our biological opinion.
I would say that in a few notable cases, we have turned
those biological opinions around very quickly, with a lot less
time than we would like, because the action agency was late in
providing us information upon which to do our biological
opinions.
So workload, the product we get to review, and when we get
that product sometimes causes us problems. An example of how
things can go smoothly, when we can bring the staff power to
bear, is how we have dealt with the Fuels Treatment Program and
our consultations with BLM, Forest Service, and others, where
we were able to staff up, put people on those consultations,
and move them along quickly because of, obviously, the
importance of fuel treatment and fire suppression in the West.
We do continue to look for ways to streamline the
consultation process. One is very common-sense, relatively easy
to do with the cooperative action agencies, and that is for our
folks and the action agency to sit down at the onset of the
development of the action agency's biological assessment and
work through it, so that we are all on the same page when it
comes time for us to develop a biological opinion. We are doing
that to some degree. It is my goal to do that to a much larger
degree with those agencies that we are consulting with.
We have also undertaken a process of developing counterpart
regulations. Two quick examples would be under the President's
Healthy Forest Initiative and also with the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture dealing
with pesticide registration.
So those counterpart regulations should continue to ensure
protection for threatened and endangered species, but also
provide, again, a more streamlined process, a more timely
process, for consultation.
We would always like to have a little more time to complete
our work, but I don't know that it is unreasonable if we could
staff up the way that we would like to. But I think we have a
pretty good track record, with some exceptions that I will
agree to, of turning around our biological opinions and
consulting with agencies, and doing so in a way that makes
sense to the agency and makes sense for the species involved.
I would just conclude by saying that out of 77,000 total
consultations, 72,000 were informal; that gives us a good
indication that we can work cooperatively with these agencies.
We are working together, and we can deal with whatever
conflicts there might be up front, negating the necessity of
going to actual formal consultation. That is what I would like
to see us doing.
Senator Crapo. I appreciate that objective and would just
encourage your continued focus on this. Section 7 consultations
are one area where I think regulatory solutions or cooperation
between the agencies can make a lot of progress, and I would
encourage you to continue focusing on that.
My next question deals, again, with critical habitat and
economic analysis. The previous administration wrongfully tried
to justify their position that there was no economic impact of
critical habitat because the economic impacts all occurred at
the initial listing. I say that they were wrong, these
arguments were wrongful because the courts have rejected these
arguments.
The cost of economic analyses are, as you say on page 63 of
your submission, equal to or greater than the costs associated
with preparing the rest of the designation. Are there different
ways to address the methodology for economic analysis that will
be both informative and provide policymakers with adequate
information?
Mr. Williams. Yes, Senator, I would say that I don't share,
nor does the Department of the Interior share, the previous
view about the economic impact of critical habitat. There are a
number of folks within the Service and the Department, that are
working towards a more realistic, a more consistent approach to
economic analysis for critical habitat designations.
At times can appear to be somewhat of a moving target, as
court decisions in different parts of the country come down,
trying to assess if there is agreement on the decision handed
down, and if there is, how we incorporate that into the
economic analysis.
It is an area that is certainly ripe for improvement, and
the Department is working, as I said, working at improving our
economic analysis, so that it truly reflects the impacts, the
potential impacts, that designating critical habitat will have
on society, on those folks that are within that area.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much.
In your budget submission, on page 13, the Service is
requesting a $3 million increase in the listing program as a
result of litigation-driven workloads. What are the major
contributing factors that have led the courts essentially
directing the priorities of the Service as a result of
litigation?
Mr. Williams. One of the things, as I mentioned earlier, is
a backlog of critical habitat designations. Early in the
process, the Service, in the process of listing a species, on
numerous occasions indicated that, that it was not prudent to
designate critical habitat, for a variety of reasons, one of
which may be that there's little benefit to the species.
Those determinations were challenged by a variety of
plaintiffs. The courts agreed with the plaintiffs. We find
ourselves in a situation now where not only are we faced with
new petitions to list, new decisions to list, and critical
habitat designations that must go along or shortly thereafter
the listing, but also the backlog of critical habitat
designations that we didn't do before. That is one factor, I
believe.
Another factor is in the volume of lawsuits that are out
there in the country, although primarily, the western part of
the country, but the volume of lawsuits and court decisions
that are handed down have an impact on, it almost seems like on
a weekly basis--I am exaggerating a bit, but certainly on a
monthly basis--critical habitat designations that are in
process, and we have to go back and rethink, so that when that
designation comes out, we don't get sued. That is another
contributing factor.
Our request for the additional $3.2 million for listing/
critical habitat designation, hopefully, will be adequate to
meet, and provide the resources we need to meet, the court
demands for 2004.
I would conclude by saying--and I have mentioned this
previously--we tried to implement a priority system a few years
ago that would allow us to match our responsibilities, our
duties under the Act with the dollars that are out there to
benefit the species that we are concerned about. However, that
was rejected by the court system. As you have said, we are
largely driven now by court decisions.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. On page 72 of your submission you
state that the workload on Section 7 consultations has grown
from 40,000 in 1999 to 72,000, as you just indicated a minute
ago, in 2002. Can we assume that the number of Federal actions
has not almost doubled in the last three years, or have the
Federal action agencies used Section 7 consultation to avoid
litigation and place the workload on the Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Mr. Williams. Well, I am happy that the other Federal
agencies aren't here.
[Laughter.]
Senator Crapo. Can you answer that question?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Williams. No, I don't know if I could. I don't know if
I would characterize it that way.
In terms of what we have submitted in our budget relative
to consultations, the $2 million decrease that you see in that
budget is due to a reduction or an elimination of an earmark
that was in the budget for some number of years dealing with
southern California habitat conservation plans. We feel that
the growth in the section 6 portion of our budget and other
grants that flow through the agency provide those folks in
southern California the opportunity to compete for those funds.
As we tried to remain fiscally-conservative and constrained
by the difficult budget situation we all find ourselves in, we
have reprogrammed dollars in our budget to increase what we
think we need to deal with our listing duties for 2004. So
please don't take the $2 million decrease as an indication that
we don't think it is important or that we think that we can cut
back on our responsibilities. It's not that. It is that we
removed an earmark where we think that time has run out on the
necessity for that earmark for southern California.
Senator Crapo. What do you think accounts for the almost
doubling of the actions in three years of the consultations?
Mr. Williams. I wouldn't be surprised, in all seriousness,
that some of it isn't fear of litigation, where action
agencies--and maybe rightfully so--want to make sure that every
``i'' is dotted and ``t'' is crossed to avoid litigation that
would slow the process. I don't know that I could back that up
with factual information, but from talking with folks in other
agencies, I kind of get that sense.
Senator Crapo. Could you hold on for just one second?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
[Senator Crapo confers with staff.]
Senator Crapo. All right, thank you.
Mr. Williams, because of our time-budgeting pressures and
our budget pressures on the floor today, you may get off the
hook earlier than some of us wanted to let you off the hook
today, but I have a critical meeting with the Whip team at
noon, which is in about eight minutes.
There's a bunch of other questions I wanted to ask you, one
set of which I am going to ask you, but there are a number of
others that I won't have time to get to that I would like you
to respond to in writing, and we will submit those to you.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Senator Crapo. --at the conclusion of the hearing.
Senator Crapo. But the issue that I wanted to go into
before I conclude is the question of the news that there's
going to be a downlisting of the wolves under the Endangered
Species Act. As I assume you are aware, in Idaho that affects
part of Idaho but not the rest of Idaho.
One of the questions that I have is, how will the
downlisting of wolves affect the ability of Idaho to delist its
population in the future?
Mr. Williams. I think the downlisting, the final rule that
I signed, will help Idaho to delist in the future. I say that
for this reason: The final rule identifies three distinct
population segments. Idaho, obviously, is in the Western DPS.
The management plan that Idaho has put together, the
management plans that Montana and Wyoming are working on, and
we are working in concert with them, will set the foundation.
I'm sorry, those management plans, coupled with the status of
the wolves in that distinct population segment above recovery
goals for the last three years, really sets the stage for the
Service to move forward with a delisting.
We have also announced with the final rule an advanced
notice of a proposed rule to delist wolves and we will be
working on that. In fact, we are working on that now.
So it is a logical progression to move a species from
endangered to threatened. As we have indicated with the gray
wolves, the next step, when recovery goals are met and they are
being met; and when management plans are put together
and they are in the process of being put together is
delisting. That is where we should head, and it is a decision
based primarily on the biology of wolf populations. They are at
a point now where we believe protections will be in place in
the very near future that would allow us to delist, which, in
my mind, is a success that we should all take some credit for,
even though I know that has caused difficulties in Idaho and in
other States.
If we move to delisting, the States will, working with us,
provide the management flexibility to assure the continued
survival of those populations, but also allow land managers,
private landowners, ranchers, farmers, the ability to deal with
wolves that are causing depredation to livestock, for instance.
So I am anxious and we are anxious to move this process
along and to really be part of an effort to fulfill the real
intent of the Endangered Species Act. That is to remove
species, to recover species, to get them into positions where
States can manage them on their own.
Senator Crapo. I appreciate that, and as I understand it,
the downlisting that is to occur will only impact a portion of
the wolf population in Idaho in north Idaho, but our
experimental wolf population, which is in the remainder of
Idaho, will not be affected by the downlisting.
The question I have is, when we get to the delisting stage,
which of course we hope is soon, will that require a separate
delisting for both wolf populations in Idaho or will that
delisting stage cover all the wolf populations in Idaho?
Mr. Williams. Delisting would cover the entire distinct
population segment, including all of Idaho.
Senator Crapo. As you know, the wolf recovery process has
been very successful in Idaho and, frankly, very successful in
many other areas as well. Do you support the State of Idaho
managing its wolf population prior to delisting, since our
State management plan is already in place and wolf recovery
clearly is successful in Idaho?
Mr. Williams. Part of the 10(j) non-essential experimental
population, there's some flexibility there that allows folks to
manage/control wolves that are causing depredation, again, to
livestock.
The northern part of Idaho under the downlisting rule will
receive what we call the 4(d) rule, which closely mirrors the
10(j) rule, the only difference being--and it is a small
difference--but folks would be allowed to take control actions
for pets, for instance. Both cover domestic livestock, sheep,
and cattle.
We support what Idaho wants to do in terms of managing
wolves as long as it's consistent in this interim period, when
we go from threatened to delisted. I am not aware of any
problems with--in fact, we have been working with Idaho on
their management plan.
I am hesitating a bit because I have always thought about
it in terms of, once the species is delisted, I am comfortable
with Idaho's management program and their efforts to monitor
wolves for the next five years. But as long as it is
consistent, obviously, with the law, we will be supportive of
what Idaho wants to do after delisting.
Senator Crapo. Well, I appreciate that, and I realize that
that question of who has management authority in the interim
period is a critically-important question. I appreciate your
support and acknowledgment of the Idaho plan, of the Idaho
management plan and its success, and would like to work with
you to see if we can overcome any administrative hurdles that
there may be to Idaho assuming management now in the interim
timeframe.
One last question, and I apologize, I am going to have to
ask you to answer it quickly, and then I will maybe have to
follow up with you later after the hearing because I've got to
wrap up the hearing and then get to this next meeting.
But one of the big issues with the States, obviously, is
the financial impact that management of the species has on them
when they assume management. I realize this may be a
legislative issue rather than an issue at your level, but I
would like your opinion on whether it is proper that, when
under a Federal law like the Endangered Species Act, the State
is caused to incur costs to manage a species, that the Federal
Government support in providing the funding for that
management.
Mr. Williams. Well, I will try to answer it quickly, but I
can't answer it without saying, for 17 years at the State level
I was very much aware of when the Federal Government was going
to require us to do certain things. We would like to provide
technical assistance. We would like to provide, obviously, the
financial assistance, and we do in a way in terms of the State
wildlife grants.
Our request includes $60 million for State wildlife grants,
which could be used for those States that are developing wolf
management plans. There are opportunities, or there are some
grant programs, through the Service that can assist those
States, particularly in dealing with wolf management plans.
Do I think unfunded mandates, whether they come from the
Federal or the State level, are the best situation? No, I don't
think any of us would agree with that.
We will continue to do our best to work with all those
States that are developing their management plans, at least in
providing the technical assistance, if we can't provide direct
financial assistance.
Senator Crapo. Well, thank you very much, and I do want to
thank you and the Service for your attention to the issue, both
the downlisting and, ultimately, the delisting and working with
the States. We appreciate the new attitude that we have been
experiencing in the last little while and look forward to
working with you.
I did just want to get you on record as much as I could
with regard to the interest of the States in having the support
on these unfunded mandates.
I need to say, before I close, that Senator Inhofe's
statement will be entered into the record, as will the
statements of any other Senators who were not able to be here.
I would ask you if you would be willing to answer questions
that Senators who weren't here are willing to submit to you.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir, we will.
Senator Crapo. All right, I apologize again for having to
abruptly close this hearing. I am already very late to a
meeting that I am not supposed to be late to. So we will
conclude the remainder of our questions, and so forth, in
writing and in subsequent follow-up.
Again, I thank you for your attention to these matters and
for coming here today.
This hearing is closed. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Hon. Steven A. Williams, Director, U.S. Fish anD Wildlife
Service, Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I appreciate this
opportunity to testify before you today and report on the
Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget request for the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Our budget request for 2004 is almost $2.0 billion, consisting of
$1.3 billion in current appropriations under the purview of this
subcommittee as well as $674.0 million in permanent appropriations.
The request continues key Administration priorities such as the
Secretary's continued emphasis on conservation partnerships through a
revised Cooperative Conservation Initiative that focuses on existing
successful programs.
The Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife, North American
Wetlands Joint Venture, Coastal and Refuge Challenge Cost-share
programs are all included in this year's Cooperative Conservation
Initiative. The budget provides $15.0 million in increased funding for
these programs, including $9.0 million for Partners, $3.0 million for
Joint Ventures and $3.0 million for Refuge Challenge Cost-share.
Our main operating account--Resource Management--is funded at
$941.5 million, a net increase of $38.0 million over the 2003 request.
We note this account is funded at $30.0 million over the recently
signed 2003 Omnibus spending bill.
The request includes $7.0 million for fixed pay and other cost
increases. The budget also includes a $3.4 million general decrease for
travel and transportation costs as well as an $8.1 million reduction
tied to information technology streamlining savings. Last, funding for
several lower priority projects has been redirected to higher
priorities.
President's Management Agenda
We support the President's Management Agenda and continue to create
a citizen-centered organization by evaluating and implementing
strategies to integrate budget and performance management, conduct work
force planning, competitively out-source with the private sector,
expand e-government, and provide greater accountability to the American
people.
The Service has worked closely with the Department over the past
year to develop a more business-like approach to strategic planning and
the 2004 budget. Substantial new performance information is contained
in our justifications along with the series of traditional information
that has supported previous congressional decisionmaking on the budget
request.
Last, the National Fish Hatchery System and Partners for Fish and
Wildlife Program were evaluated under the Administration's Program
Assessment Rating Tool during the 2004 budget process. I will discuss
more on the PART process later.
Fisheries Vision for the Future
We request $103.6 million, a net increase of $8.8 million over the
2003 request to implement the Fisheries Program's 'Vision for the
Future' through increased funding for hatchery operations and hatchery
maintenance and increased emphasis on aquatic invasive species. For
comparative purposes, this level is $3.0 million below the recently
signed 2003 Omnibus spending bill, largely attributed to unrequested
projects included in the Omnibus bill.
Our 'Vision for the Future,' with the backing of this Presidential
budget request, will help to do more for aquatic resources and the
people who value and depend on them through enhanced partnerships,
scientific integrity, and a balanced approach to conservation. This
'Vision' will help the Service better support the sport fishing
community, which has historically been one of this agency's most
valuable and valued partners. It also will help efforts to restore
imperiled species.
We seek a total of $58.0 million for the National Fish Hatchery
System, a net increase of $8.0 million above the 2003 request level.
The National Fish Hatchery System was one of over 200 programs
evaluated using the Administration's Program Assessment Rating Tool
during the fiscal year 2004 budget process. New goals were developed
consistent with the President's Management Agenda, the Department's
Draft Strategic Plan, and the Fisheries Vision. This year's increase is
a direct reflection of the program's shift toward becoming more
performance oriented.
$5.0 million will support operations:
<bullet> $1.6 million will support an additional 29 priority
recovery tasks prescribed in approved Recovery Plans in 2004, an
increase of 11 percent.
<bullet> $2.5 million will implement 32 additional restoration/
recreation projects to conserve and restore aquatic resources, roughly
72 percent of all restoration activities.
<bullet> $900,000 will be used to conduct 16 high priority
projects addressing science and technology objectives supporting
valuable recreational fisheries and recovery of imperiled species.
$3.0 million will improve the hatchery system's aging
infrastructure to good and fair operational conditions to meet fishery
management and recovery plan requirements. Of this total, $2.5 million
will be directed toward 16 additional high priority deferred
maintenance projects. The remaining $500,000 will enable the Service to
complete Condition Assessments on 75 percent of its field stations in
2004, and to streamline maintenance reporting and accountability by
implementing the Service Asset and Maintenance Management System
(SAMMS).
An additional $1.0 million will prevent the introduction of aquatic
invasive species, detect and rapidly respond to aquatic invasive
species, and control and manage aquatic invasive species such as Asian
carp in the Mississippi drainage and Asian swamp Eel in the Everglades.
We also note that while this year's budget focuses on much needed
increases for the hatchery system, we continue to strongly support
aquatic habitat needs through a variety of programs. For example, the
budget continues base funding for fish passage projects, for aquatic
habitat restoration, and for other projects, some of which will be
discussed below.
Partners for Fish and Wildlife
To date the Partners program has worked with 28,700 private
landowners through voluntary partnerships to implement on-the-ground
habitat restoration projects covering 360,000 acres across the country.
The Partners Program was also one of over 200 programs evaluated
using the Administration's Program Assessment Rating Tool during the
fiscal year 2004 budget process. This year's increase is a direct
reflection of the program's achievement of annual performance goals.
We are requesting an additional $9.1 million in the 2004 request to
increase the program's capabilities to enter into meaningful
partnerships resulting in on-the-ground habitat restoration
accomplishments.
For example, the Service will work with the California University
of Pennsylvania on a landscape-scale habitat restoration program in the
Buffalo Creek Watershed, Washington County, Pennsylvania and Brooke
County, West Virginia to install streambank fencing, cattle crossings,
and constructing alternate watering sources for livestock. And, in
Alaska, the Service will work with the Chickaloon Village to restore
fish passage within the Moose Creek watershed to restore all five
species of Pacific salmon to the watershed.
During 2004, the Partners program will:
<bullet> enhance or restore a total of 66,365 acres of wetlands
through voluntary agreements to help improve fish and wildlife
habitats;
<bullet> enhance or restore a total of 287,507 acres of upland
habitat through voluntary agreements to help improve fish and wildlife
populations;
<bullet> enhance or restore a total of 830 miles of riparian and
stream habitat through voluntary agreements to help improve fish and
wildlife populations.
National Wildlife Refuge System
Significant funding increases will support high priority needs of
the National Wildlife Refuge System. Last year, the President's Budget
requested the largest increase in the system's history to celebrate the
Refuge System's Centennial in March 2003. This year the Administration
request builds on that substantial increase with another $25.5 million.
For comparative purposes, this is a $33.6 million increase over the
recently signed 2003 Omnibus spending bill.
Together with last year's request, this totals over $82.0 million
for much needed operations and maintenance projects within the refuge
program.
A $5.0 million increase will provide startup costs for new and
expanded refuges including Vieques, Midway Atoll, and Don Edwards.
Invasive species encroaching upon the refuge system will be addressed
with an additional $2.1 million to combat nutria, Tamarisk and Giant
Salvinia, among others.
We will fund additional Challenge Cost Share projects under the
Cooperative Conservation Initiative with $3.0 million; support
additional Comprehensive Conservation Plans with $2.0 million; and
control Chronic Wasting Disease on the refuge system with $500,000.
Other priorities include $1.6 million for refuge law enforcement,
$2.0 million for Land Management Research Demonstration Units, $1.0
million for environmental education, and $7.0 million for refuge
specific priorities.
On the maintenance front, additional maintenance funding will
upgrade the SAMMS module with $2.0 million.
Endangered Species
The endangered species program is funded at $129.0 million, $3.0
million above the 2003 request level. The program funding will support
operations that enhance implementation of the Endangered Species Act,
one of the nation's most significant environmental laws.
An increase of $3.2 million is required to address the growing
listing program litigation-driven workload. This additional funding is
necessary to address listing actions required by court orders or
settlement agreements.
Additional high priority recovery actions, including immediate
actions needed to stabilize critically imperiled species and actions
that could lead to delisting nearly recovered species will be
implemented nationwide with an additional $2.0 million. Potential
actions include, for example, propagation and habitat restoration for
aquatic species in the Southern Appalachians and Lower Tennessee
Cumberland ecosystems, a region containing the highest diversity of
freshwater fishes and snails in the United States and the highest
diversity of freshwater mussels and crayfishes in the world.
Other Operations Increases
A $3.0 million increase for the Joint Venture program will provide
a total of $10.4 million for the program, in line with target levels.
As of December 2002, Plan partners have contributed approximately $1.5
billion to protect, restore, or enhance almost 5 million acres of U.S.
wetlands, grasslands, forests, and riparian habitat, more than one-
third of the 16 million acres of U.S. habitat objectives under the
Plan.
Our law enforcement program will hire nine additional wildlife
inspectors with an additional $1.0 million to interdict and deter the
illegal trade in protecting species thus sustaining biological
communities. In addition, manatee protection efforts will be
accelerated in Florida by protecting manatees from boat strikes and
enforcing speed zones in refuges and sanctuary areas with a $500,000
increase.
Easements and Land Acquisition
The President's budget request reduces our traditional land
acquisition program by $29.6 million to a $40.7 million level to fund
high-priority conservation easements or acquisition of land from
willing sellers. For comparative purposes, the account is funded at
$32.2 million below the recently signed 2003 Omnibus spending bill.
Highlights include $5.0 million for conservation easements on the
Quinault Indian Reservation in Washington State and $5.0 million for
the Baca Ranch in Colorado.
Construction
The Construction account totals $35.4 million, roughly equal with
last year's request. This request level will fund 19 dam safety, road
and bridge safety, and other priority projects at national wildlife
refuges, fish hatcheries, and law enforcement facilities. Highlights
include replacement of the Great Lakes fish stocking vessel M/V Togue,
replacement of the office building at Cabo Rojo NWR in Puerto Rico, and
$1.0 million to begin an aircraft replacement program to support
important migratory bird surveys important to setting hunting
regulations.
Grant Programs
We will continue conservation efforts through cooperation,
consultation and communication with all stakeholders including States,
the District of Columbia, Territories and Tribes. The President's 2004
budget continues to support active participation on the part of the
States and other partners in resource conservation efforts. To this
end, the budget provides $247.0 million for five Service grant programs
that facilitate State and local conservation efforts.
Recognizing the opportunities for conservation of endangered and
threatened species through partnerships with private landowners, the
budget includes $50.0 million to continue the Landowner Incentive and
Private Stewardship programs.
We are requesting $86.6 million for the Cooperative Endangered
Species Conservation Fund, $2.3 million below the 2003 request level,
and $6.1 million above the 2003 Omnibus spending bill. The proposed
funding level would provide $50.0 million to support Habitat
Conservation Plan Land Acquisition; $17.8 million for Recovery Land
Acquisition grants to help implement approved species recovery plans;
$7.5 million for traditional grants to States; and $8.9 million for HCP
planning assistance to States.
The budget includes $60.0 million (including a $5 million tribal
set-aside) for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, roughly level with the
fiscal year 2003 request level, and $4.6 million below the 2003 Omnibus
spending bill.
A $50.0 million request for the North American Wetlands
Conservation Fund includes an increase of $6.0 million above the 2003
request level, and $11.3 million above the 2003 Omnibus spending bill.
This Fund protects and restores wetland ecosystems that serve as
habitat and resting areas for migratory game and non-game birds, and
supports non-regulatory private-public investments in the U.S., Canada,
and Mexico.
International Conservation
$7.0 million is available for the Multinational Species
Conservation Fund, $2.0 million above the 2003 requested level.
Conclusion
Thank you very much. We appreciate the committee's past support,
and look forward to working with the committee in the future.
______
Responses of Steven Williams to Additional Questions from Senator Crapo
Question 1. In your budget submission on page 13 the Service is
requesting a $3 million increase in the listing program as a result of
litigation-driven workload. What are the major contributing factors
that have led to the Courts essentially directing the priorities of the
Service as a result of litigation?
Response. Essentially, for many years, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) has been unable to comply with all of the non-
discretionary deadlines imposed by Section 4 of the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) for completing mandatory listing and critical habitat
(listing program) actions within available appropriations. The majority
of private litigants have therefore repeatedly sued the Service because
it has failed to meet these non-discretionary deadlines. These lawsuits
have subjected the Service to an ever-increasing series of court orders
and court-approved settlement agreements, compliance with which now
consumes nearly the entire listing program budget. This leaves the
Service with little ability to prioritize its activities to direct
listing resources to the listing program actions most urgently needed
to conserve species.
Question 2. The Service requests a decrease of just over $2 million
for Section 7 consultations and HCPs. Your stated justification for
this reduction is funding support available through other programs. How
exactly do you intend on addressing the backlog in developing
biological opinions for Section 7 consultations with a decrease in
funding?
Response. The decrease is a targeted elimination of the Natural
Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) earmark. Activities conducted under
this program are also excellent candidates for funding through grant
programs such as the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund
or the Private Stewardship Grant program. Eliminating this earmark will
not alter the amount of funds available to provide consultation
services to Federal agencies.
Question 3a. On page 72 of your submission you state that the
workload on Section 7 consultations has grown from 40,000 Federal
actions in 1999 to 72,000 Federal actions in 2002. Can we assume that
the number of Federal actions has not almost doubled in the last 3
years? Or have Federal action agencies used Section 7 consultation to
avoid litigation and placed the workload on the FWS?
Response. The increased number of consultations does in part
reflect the fact that many Federal agencies have recognized their legal
duty to consult with the Service when their actions may affect listed
species or critical habitat. But the increased number also reflects the
effects of adding many species to the list in the late 1990's. The
majority of Section 7 consultations completed by the Service are
resolved informally with the action agency and applicant. The Service
informally resolved consultations on the vast majority (98 percent in
fiscal year (fiscal year 2001) of Federal actions by working with the
action agency and the applicant to avoid adverse effects to listed
species or habitats. The Service also encourages applicants to consult
as early as possible in the project planning process, thereby
identifying and resolving endangered species conflicts while the
project design is still flexible.
Question 3b. Have you investigated the possibility of charging back
Section 7 consultation fees to the action agencies as a means of
funding this process and reducing the backlog?
Response. The Department's fiscal year 2001 Appropriations Act
(P.L. 106-291) included explicit authority for the Service to be
reimbursed for expenses incurred when conducting Section 7
consultations on hazardous fuels reduction projects. The Service may
explore whether this type of authority might expedite the process for
other activities. At the informal consultation stage, reimbursable
agreements are made with various agencies to provide technical
assistance so that the process proceeds more expeditiously at the
formal stage.
Question 4. Of the 72,000 consultations for Federal actions noted
in your submission only 53 actions were determined to be likely to
jeopardize the species. What does this say to you about the
``conservation by permit'' system at work in the country today, and
wouldn't a system of applied conservation based on the best interests
of the species rather than chances of Federal actions be preferred?
Response. We believe that the low number of jeopardy consultations
is due largely to the cooperative approach to conservation that arises
when action agencies seek the expertise of Service biologists.
Involvement of endangered species specialists through the consultation
process typically leads to project designs that avoid jeopardy or
adverse modification of critical habitat. Effective and adaptive
consultation practices and the availability of well-trained staff have
been, and will continue to be, the primary factors in maintaining this
remarkable rate of success.
Question 5. What has the Service done to assist small landowners
take part in the Section 10 HCP system?
Response. The Service has worked with local units of government to
develop programmatic permits such as those used in Texas for the
Houston toad. We have also set aside a portion of our Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP) Planning Assistance grant funds to target small
landowners who want to develop an HCP. Additionally, under the 5-point
policy, we provide authorization for streamlined approval for low-
effect HCPs--an effort targeted specifically at small landowners. The
results to date indicate additional effort is needed in this area.
Question 6. In light of the courts decision in the Mexican Spotted
Owl case, what do you see as the possible implications on HCPs and the
exclusion of HCP covered lands from critical habitat thereby fulfilling
the promised role of HCP presumed by former Sec. Babbitt?
Response. We expect to preserve the exclusion for lands covered by
HCPs using the procedures of section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Question 7. I would like to applaud the Service and the Secretary
for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program. It is certainly a
success and it fulfills, what I think all of us agree, is the best
objective of conservation--a voluntary system of Federal, State and
local partnerships for species.
However, it occurs to me that the funds used in these voluntary
efforts could also be used as credits for a mitigation bank. In this
way we could leverage conservation funding and begin to use the Act as
a carrot for positive change rather than a stick against reasonable
development. What progress is the Service making in developing
Endangered Species Conservation banking?
Response. On May 8, 2003, the Service published its guidance for
the establishment, use, and operation of conservation banks (68 Fed Reg
24,753). Prior to the issuance of this guidance, the Service had
successfully entered into agreements with landowners for the
establishment of these banks, mainly in the southeastern and
southwestern portions of the country. In response to the new guidance,
increased interest on the part of landowners and increased effort on
the part of the Service to establish conservation banks for endangered
and threatened species has occurred. The Service is currently working
on more than 40 conservation banks with private landowners and State
and local governments. Several agreements are being developed with
landowners in States that are new to conservation banking, including
Oregon, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and Kentucky.
Question 8. In my home State of Idaho, and throughout the Pacific
Northwest, controversy continues to rage over the endangered Pacific
salmon. In the operation of the National Fish Hatchery System, does the
Service use the same ESU regimen employed by NMFS? In other words, in
light of the Alsea case, does the FWS count hatchery raised fish as
endangered species for the purposes of determining the overall numbers
of species? Does FWS allow the take of endangered fish species under
its jurisdiction for commerce?
Response. The Endangered Species Act permits the Service to make
listing decisions for subspecies and distinct population segments
(DPS). Although NMFS's ``evolutionary significant unit'' (ESU) is
equivalent to a ``distinct population segment,'' the Service does not
use the term, ``ESU.''
In making its listing decision the Service has always considered
the presence of hatchery fish. For example, in listing the Atlantic
Salmon DPS, the Service accounted for the hatchery fish in making its
listing decision.
With regards to the taking of endangered fish species under its
jurisdiction, the Service does not allow the take of wild fish species
listed as endangered or their progeny for commercial purposes.
Question 9. You have expressed concerns over the cost of critical
habitat designations. Obviously, the need for such designations and
possible ways to streamline the process are important questions for
legislative and administrative reform. In the interest of making the
existing process work more efficiently until such reforms can be
implemented, do you believe that third parties can assist by providing
better peer review and comments on the issues relevant to a
designation, both from the biological and economic analyses
perspectives. If this is the case, doesn't that argue for sharing the
relevant information with the other interested parties?
Response. Please see our response to Question 10 below.
Question 10. Why does FWS often refuse to release such information,
as is happening now with the pygmy owl in Arizona? Isn't there a way to
develop a process that protects this data to the degree necessary to
ensure that privacy and State concerns are satisfied but still make it
available to affected parties?
Response to Questions 9 and 10. Under the Endangered Species Act,
the Service must ensure that listing and critical habitat decisions are
based on the best available science. To this end, when making listing
and critical habitat decisions, the Service consults with experts both
inside and outside the Federal Government and considers data from
Federal and State agencies, other stakeholders, and the general public
during the rulemaking process. In addition, the Service's peer-review
policy allows for input from three appropriate and independent experts
regarding the adequacy of scientific data used to support listing and
critical habitat decisions. The Service is currently drafting interim
peer review guidance that will clarify the objectives and procedure for
implementing the Service's 1994 peer review policy.
In 2003, the General Accounting Office reviewed the Service's
listing program and determined that the Service's policies and
practices generally ensure that listing and critical habitat
designation decisions are based on the best available science and that
the Service consults with a wide range of experts and stakeholders.
While the Service's process in making listing and critical habitat
decisions allows for the sharing of data such that the public may
adequately participate, there are certain circumstances in which the
release of sensitive information could result in harm to listed species
through collection, as well as threats from both unintentional and
malicious harassment of animals. The Service must also be sensitive to
the privacy concerns of landowners. For example, the Service does not
release information that contains landowner names and addresses.
Question 11. Two recent court decisions, involving the Canada lynx
and the Santa Ana sucker, indicate that Section 7 consultations will
not go forward until critical habitat designations have been made. Can
you estimate what the cost these decisions will be to the government,
action agencies, and regulated entities if all actions subject to
Section 7 must come to a halt until such designation determinations are
made? What does the Service intend to do about these decisions?
Response. The Service is not able to predict the number of future
actions that may be affected or estimate the costs to the government or
regulated entities under Section 7. However, we note that with regard
to the lynx decision, the injunction is currently on appeal, and we
expect that it will be lifted soon. The Service recently issued a final
rule designating critical habitat in response to the Court's decision
in the San Ana sucker matter. We expect this injunction will also be
lifted soon.
Question 12. It would seem to be an efficient use of resources to
delist species that have met their recovery goals so that funds that
are spent on them can be used to address other species on the list.
What efforts are being made by the Service to delist species that have
met recovery goals? Where does delisting in the Service's priorities?
How much is the Service's budget request for delisting activities.
Response. Because recovery and delisting are the ultimate goals of
the ESA, they are a high priority for the Service. We have specific
funds set aside for general program activities which include delisting
funds. For fiscal year 2004, the Service requested a $2 million
increase in funds that would stabilize species on the brink of
extinction and implement final recovery actions for species on the
brink of recovery that would ultimately lead to their downlisting or
delisting in the next few years.
Question 13. What 12 species do you expect to list in this calendar
year?
Response. The Service issued final listing rules in fiscal year
2003 for the following species: Scotts Valley polygonum, Canada lynx,
Sonoma County DPS California Tiger Salamander, Columbia Basin DPS of
the Pygmy Rabbit, Loamatium cookii, and the Limnanthese floccose ssp.
Grandiflora.
Question 14. You state that you expect to work with EPA on NPDES
water quality criteria programs. In light of the court decision in
[Micco suki Tribe] what assurances can you offer the western States
that temperature variations in trans-basin water transfers will not
unduly burden the western water use system?
Response. As you know, the Miccosukee case, Miccosukee Tribe v. So.
Florida Water Mgnt. Dist., 280 F.3d 1364 (11th Cir. 2002), is now
before the United States Supreme Court, and the United States has filed
a brief supporting reversal of the decision. With this in mind, while
the Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for administering
the NPDES water quality criteria programs, the Service will coordinate
closely with EPA to ensure that its involvement in the process is
carried out efficiently and that such transfers are consistent with
applicable statutes.
Question 15. As I read your budget submission, it appears that the
number of new HCP applications seems to be declining from previous
years. In fact in 2003 you expect only 10.5 thousand acres of HCP
coverage for 10 new HCPs. Is this an acceptable pace for HCP
processing? Is this a possible reason for HCP application decline?
Response. The Service believes that the apparent decline is not the
result of inefficiencies in processing, but is likely the result of a
trend toward regional HCPs which may result in a decline in the total
number of applications received; however, we expect these regional HCPs
will increase the number of activities and acres covered.
Question 16. One indication of whether a law is working or not is
the number of lawsuits that are brought under it. The Service has said
that it will only be able to work on listing and critical habitat
issues that are required by court order. That indicates that there are
serious problems with the listing process and the critical habitat
process. What is the Service doing to correct these problems with the
listing process and the critical habitat issue?
Response. As previously noted in April 2003 testimony before this
subcommittee, the Department of the Interior welcomes the opportunity
to work with Congress in developing a legislative solution to the
crisis surrounding the Section 4 listing program. Currently, the
Department is developing critical habitat policy in order to provide
the greatest conservation benefit to threatened and endangered species
in the most cost-effective manner.
Question 17. Last year at this time the credibility of the Service
was shaken by incidents of employees planting false data on Canada lynx
and a preliminary report from the National Academy of Sciences that the
actions taken in shutting off water in the Klamath Basin the year
before were not supported by the scientific evidence. What has the
Service done in the past year to better assure that decisions are
supported by sound science? What actions were ever taken against the
employees who planted the false evidence in the Canada lynx incident?
Response. The Service has undertaken a number of actions to ensure
that decisions are supported by sound science. Some of these actions
include the development of personnel standards which specify
disciplinary consequences for inappropriate or unacceptable behavior
related to science, the establishment of interim draft guidance for the
implementation of the Service's peer review policy, and the creation of
a new position of Science Advisor to the Director of the Service.
As previously noted in our May 2002 testimony before the House
Resources Committee, the two Service biologist involved in the
submission of unauthorized genetic samples during population surveys of
the Canada lynx were subjected to appropriate administrative action.
Question 18. It would seem to be an efficient use of resources to
de-list species that have met recovery goals so that funds that are
spent on them can be used to address other species on the list. What
efforts are being made by the Service to de-list species that have met
recovery goals? Where does de-listing stand in the Service's
priorities? How much funding are you seeking for de-listing activities?
Response. Please see the answer to Question 12 above.
Question 19. The Department and the Service have indicated that
they are seeking more partnerships and greater cooperative efforts with
landowners in the administration of the ESA. Yet the 2004 budget
request for the Landowner Incentive Program, which provides funding for
technical assistance to private landowners for enhancement of species
and habitat on their property, is $10 million less than for fiscal year
2003. If the goal is greater cooperation, shouldn't this program
funding be increased instead of being cut? Why is this program being
cut?
Response. As you know, the Department is committed to what
Secretary Norton has termed the ``4 Cs'' in order to achieve
conservation goals through communication, consultation, and cooperation
with local stakeholders. Over the course of the past several years, the
Department has greatly expanded the number of programs that advance
this conservation ethic. Thus, while our competing priorities have
resulted in one of these programs, the Landowner Incentive Program,
being funded at $10 million less than fiscal year 2003, it is also the
case that this is the same funding level as the fiscal year 2002
enacted level for this program, which allows us to maintain this
valuable program.
Question 20. Does the FWS have any plans for rulemaking or policy
guidance that would allow the listing and delisting process to move
forward in an expedient fashion?
Response. Currently, the Department is developing a critical
habitat policy in order to address critical habitat designation, which
should help expedite the listing process.
Question 21. Does the FWS have any plans to allow for greater
collaboration and coordination with other agencies on the listing and
delisting of species? If so, what are those plans?
Response. In order to facilitate greater collaboration, the Service
published the Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts (PECE)
policy. This policy provides guidance to Service personnel for use in
determining whether conservation efforts identified in conservation
agreements, conservation plans, management plans, and similar documents
will contribute to making listing a species unnecessary or contributes
to forming a basis for listing a species as threatened rather than
endangered. It also provides information to groups interested in
developing agreements or plans that would contribute to making it
unnecessary to list a species under the ESA. It is designed to ensure
consistent and adequate evaluation by the Service of future or recently
implemented conservation efforts identified in such documents when
making listing decisions. We expect that this policy will facilitate
the development by States and other entities of conservation efforts
that improve a species' status so as to make listing unnecessary.
Question 22. The Charles M. Russell Wildlife Refuge in Montana
allows for only a 30-ft. easement for public access and this has led to
inadequate road access in some cases, and in others, to close access.
Because of soil conditions, road construction requires double the
easement allowed for on the Refuge. The FWS should be willing to work
with the counties and the public in insuring adequate all-weather
access through the refuges? Do you have any plans to address this
situation?
Response. Within the Charles M. Russell Wildlife Refuge in Montana,
there are only a small number of county roads that cross the refuge.
These roads have 66-foot wide easements. The vast majority of roads in
the refuge that provide public access are administered by the Service,
and therefore are not associated with easements. We are not aware of
any problems associated with public access resulting from inadequate
roads easements.
Question 23. The Thunder Basin Grasslands Prairie Ecosystem
Association is composed of a group of private, State and Federal
landowners in Northeast Wyoming that is interested in developing an
innovative multi-species approach to conservation of habitat and
species for future listings. Current provisions for HCP's and CCA's do
not provide for a multi-species approach. Is the Service interested in
working to develop provisions in law, rules and regulations for a
multi-species approach to conservation?
Response. The Service does provide multispecies approaches through
HCPs and Cooperative Conservation Agreements (CCA). The law, as well as
the Service's regulations, provide for these activities. The Service is
engaged in a large scale effort to work with all of our partners on the
development of HCPs and CCAs.
Question 24. What is the FWS's policy on delisting endangered
species when target recovery numbers are reached? Please answer this
question as it applies broadly to listed species and specifically as it
applies to the grizzly bear.
Response. Recovery plans, developed by the Service and stakeholders
for listed species, identify delisting goals. When a species reaches
those delisting goals, the Service considers removing it from the
Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. To
delist a species, the Service follows a process similar to when we
consider a species for listing under the ESA: we assess the population
and its recovery achievements; we assess the existing threats; and, we
seek advice from species experts inside and outside of the Service.
If the Service determines that the threats have been sufficiently
reduced, then we may consider delisting the species. When delisting
species, the Service first proposes the action in the Federal Register.
At this time, the Service also seeks the opinion of independent species
experts, other Federal agencies, State biologists, and the public.
After analyzing the comments we received on the proposed rulemaking, we
decide whether to complete the proposed action or maintain the species
status as is. Our final decision is announced in the Federal Register.
As a result of the collaborative efforts among the Service, the
States and other Federal agencies the Service believes that the
Yellowstone Grizzly bear population has achieved its recovery goals and
the Service plans to initiate the delisting process in fiscal year
2004.
______
Responses of Steven A. Williams to Additional Questions from Senator
Graham
Question 1. In your testimony you mention that there is a $0.5
million increase for manatee protection. Documents provided by USFWS
indicate a budget request that is almost a $0.5 million reduction from
the almost $1 million appropriated for fiscal year 2003. Can you please
explain this discrepancy for the record?
Response. In fiscal year 2004, the Administration requested $1
million for manatee protection efforts. In previous budgets, the
request was shown solely under in the Endangered Species Recovery
program, however about half of the funds were being used for the
enforcement of speed zones in manatee protection zones, a law
enforcement activity. Therefore, in fiscal year 2004, the Service's
request identified $500,000 for law enforcement activities with the
remaining $500,000 going to the Service's Endangered Species Recovery
program.
Question 2. In your testimony, you mention the burden that lawsuits
have placed on the Service. Manatee protection has been the subject of
many lawsuits and in settling the suits, USFWS has agreed to establish
14 new manatee protection zones. Manatee protection is a complicated
issue in Florida but all parties involved agree that enforcement of
manatee protection rules is crucial to protecting these creatures. Does
USFWS have enough resources to enforce currently established manatee
protection areas? Will the Service have enough resources to enforce
newly established areas as mandated by the settlement? What level of
funding do you believe will fully fund the enforcement of all federally
mandated manatee protection zones? Is this level of funding consistent
with your funding request for fiscal year 2004? If not, why not?
Response. In 2004, the Service received $500,000 to support our
initial increase in law enforcement activities to uphold boating speed
limits in manatee protection areas and safeguard the animals from boat
strike deaths. This funding, coupled with a new partnership with the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, will allow us to
conduct 13 task force operations in fiscal year 2004, providing
targeted enforcement efforts in the highest priority manatee protection
zones. In addition, our law enforcement program will redirect resources
from other investigative efforts to staff and fund the task force
operations needed to protect manatees.
Question 3. USFWS was recently sued for not complying with the
manatee settlement because the Service did not implement several
manatee speed zones. One reason that USFWS gave for not implementing
the speed zones was that the Service wanted to wait for the State of
Florida to act in order to avoid duplicating State efforts. Given the
supremacy of Federal endangered species laws over State laws and the
differences in settlement agreements that Florida and USFWS entered
into, could you explain why USFWS wanted to wait for the State of
Florida to act on manatee zones before it did? Could you also
characterize your view of the relationship between the Federal and
State level of manatee protection and enforcement?
Response. The State of Florida and the Service are working together
on the issue of manatee protection. While working to coordinate our
efforts, the State and the Service are trying to avoid duplicating
efforts in order to maximize our resources. As with other species,
local law enforcement is critical to our efforts.
As a result of a court decision, the Service was required to
designate the manatee protection areas. After analyzing 145 sites in
Florida, the Service determined that there were 13 sites which required
immediate protection. As such, the Service moved forward with the
designation of these protection areas. The Service and the State
continue to work together closely on all aspects of manatee recovery as
collaboration is key to the recovery of the species.
At times, however, the State is unable to provide adequate
protection for manatees. For example, the State's designated speed
zones in the Pine Island and Estero Bay areas in Lee County, FL, were
invalidated in a local court proceeding in December 2003. After
evaluating the area and the likelihood of harm to manatees without the
State speed zones, we are proceeding with an emergency designation of a
manatee refuge covering the exact same area. Our emergency regulation
would establish the same protections that had been provided by the
State regulations, before they were vacated. We are also proceeding, as
our regulations require, to develop a proposed rule to make this new
refuge permanent. However, should the State be able to reinstate its
speed zones in all or part of this area at any time in the future, we
will consider withdrawing our refuge designation here.
______
Responses of Steven A. Williams to Additional Questions from Senator
Baucus
Question 1. Please tell me why the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) is proceeding with a nation-wide strategy for down-listing, and
eventually de-listing, the gray wolf, rather than focusing first on
States with healthy wolf populations, like Montana? These States should
have priority in the process.
Response. The gray wolf population in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming
has met recovery goals and the Service is committed to pursuing a
proposal to delist the species. On April 1, 2003, the Service
downlisted the Western Distinct Population segment to threatened.
Decisions to delist the gray wolf will be made on a population basis,
rather than nationwide.
Based on our review of State management plans, peer review
comments, and the States' responses to those comments, the Service is
confident that both Montana and Idaho wolf management plans are
adequate to maintain their share of the tri-State wolf population above
recovery levels. In fact, Secretary Norton recently announced that both
Idaho and Montana's plans contain an appropriate balance between
necessary protections for wolves and management tools to allow
protection of people, property, pets, and livestock such that the
Department will propose to give those two States more authority to
manage their wolf populations.
Question 2. Please tell me how USFWS can give Montana management
authority over wolves prior to a national de-listing?
Response. As noted above, Montana has created a State management
plan that will adequately maintain their share of the tri-State wolf
population above recovery levels. However, delisting cannot be proposed
until all three States containing wolves from the Western District
Population Segment have produced State management plans that will
successfully provide for protection of these species. While Montana and
Idaho have adequate post-delisting plans, the Service has concerns
about Wyoming's plan and cannot go forward with a delisting for this
population segment of gray wolf until those concerns are addressed.
Question 3. Please explain to me the differences in staffing
between Region 6 and Region 1, the Pacific Region? How many ecological
services staff does the Pacific Region have? How many ecological
services staff does Region 6 have?
Response. In the Service's Ecological Service's Region 1 office
there are approximately 546 staff members. In Region 6, there are
approximately 232 staff members.
Question 4. How can the USFWS explain the striking difference in
staffing levels in these two Regions?
Response. A key reason for the difference in staffing levels in
these two Regions is the difference in the number of species for which
each Region is the lead and the associated workload. The Service
allocates resources to the regions based on consideration of the number
of species present in the region and identified priorities and
workloads; the staffing levels reflect this. Region 1 is the lead for
work involving 814 species, including 647 species already listed under
the ESA and 167 that are proposed or candidates for listing. Region 6
is the lead for work involving 73 species, including 55 listed species
and 18 others that are proposed or candidates for listing.
Question 5. Does the USFWS believe that the ecological services
staff in Montana are able to meet all of their responsibilities and act
in a proactive fashion to help the State and landowners conserve
species and prevent listings?
Response. The Service does believe that the ecological services
staff in Montana are able to meet all of their responsibilities and
proactively assist the State and landowners in the conservation of
species and prevention of listing.
Question 6. What will the USFWS do to increase staffing levels in
Montana and Region 6?
Response. The Service will continually review funding for the
Region based on the criteria listed in our response to Question 4
above. Additionally, through the Service's workforce planning
activities, if skills or competency gaps are identified at locations in
Montana and Region 6, the Service will consider all available tools to
fill these gaps. Funds will be allocated based on reviews and other
competing priorities in the President's Budget.
______
Responses of Steven A. Williams to Additional Questions from Senator
Inhofe
Question 1. The Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed expanding
the Ozark Plateau National Wildlife Refuge in northeast Oklahoma by
nearly 12,000 acres. This proposal has been met with opposition from
many local citizens. What is the current status of this proposal? In
order for the proposed expansion to proceed, whose approval will it
require?
Response. In regard to the current status of the proposal to expand
the Ozark Plateau National Wildlife Refuge, the Service released an
Environmental Assessment, Land Protection Plan, and Conceptual
Management Plan for public review in November 2002. The Region extended
the review period twice and public review ended on April 11, 2003. The
Service is currently considering the input received during the public
review period.
Question 2. If approved, some of the funding for the expansion of
Ozark Plateau will come from the bankruptcy settlement of a former
mining company at the now Tar Creek Superfund site. Is this correct? If
so, please explain why these funds are being used to purchase refuge
land. Additionally, please explain in detail the sources of funding for
the $3.2 million proposed expansion. Do any of the funds require
congressional action?
Response. In the 1990's, when two mining companies responsible for
significant portions of releases of hazardous wastes at the Tar Creek
superfund site went bankrupt, the Department of Interior collected a
portion of their allocation of damages for injuries to Federal trust
resources through a Natural Resources Damage Assessment and Restoration
Program (NRDAR) claim. The settlement documents for these bankruptcies
specifically listed migratory birds and federally listed endangered and
threatened species (gray bat, Ozark cavefish, and bald eagle) as the
injured trust resources targeted in the claim.
To expend the bankruptcy funds, the Department, working through the
Service, prepared and publicly circulated a Partial Restoration Plan
and Environmental Assessment that addressed alternatives for using
settlement funds collected in the NRDAR claim. Subsequent to public
review of the Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment in 2000,
the Department issued a Finding of No Significant Impact, that
determined the use of part of the bankruptcy funds to purchase lands
for the Ozark Plateau National Wildlife Refuge would satisfy the
regulatory requirement that the settlement moneys be used for the
federally listed endangered and threatened species and migratory birds
impacted by the mining at the Site. The Service is actively working
with the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality, and the Tribes in Ottawa County to
identify further joint restoration opportunities in Ottawa County. In
addition, the Department is currently working with other trustees to
determine the total appropriate compensation for other Federal, State,
and Tribal resources injured by releases from the mine site.
Funds paid under the NRDAR provisions of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) are
separate from funds identified for the remediation or cleanup of a
superfund site. Remediation funds are administered by the Environmental
Protection Agency, and earmarked to remove or remediate the hazardous
substances in the actual mine area. NRDAR funds are also separate from
any funds that may be used to compensate citizens for adverse health
effects resulting from the Tar Creek site.
The majority of the funds to purchase lands and conservation
easements for the Ozark Plateau NWR would come from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF). Congress appropriates specific funding
amounts from the LWCF for land acquisition at national wildlife refuges
annually. The refuges must compete on a national basis with each other
for the limited annual LWCF funding available. A minority of the funds
for the Ozark Refuge would come from the NRDAR program as described
above. Congressional action is not required to expend NRDAR funds.
Question 3. In Fiscal Year 2001, the FWS paid Adair County and
Delaware County approximately 52 percent of the funding they were
entitled to under the refuge revenue sharing program. If the FWS
acquired the proposed 11,933 acres, how will the expansion of this
refuge impact the local tax base? Do you anticipate more than a 52
percent compensation for the loss of tax revenue?
Response. Land acquired in fee by the Service is removed from the
county tax rolls. To help offset lost tax revenues, the county receives
an annual payment in lieu of taxes, as provided by the Refuge Revenue
Sharing Act of 1935 (16 U.S.C. 7145:49 Stat. 383, as amended). If not
enough revenues are available in the fund to make full payments, the
Service distributes the funds proportionately nationwide. Refuge
Revenue Sharing payments usually exceed the property taxes paid by the
previous private landowners in cases where agricultural exemptions
exist, and this has still been the case for many of the Ozark Plateau
properties, even at a less than 100 percent entitlement level.
Question 4. There are currently many hunters and fishermen in this
area. Will the FWS allow hunting, fishing and trapping on the lands
incorporated into the refuge?
Response. Expansion of the refuge would provide additional
compatible opportunities for recreation on tracts with gated caves for
hunters, wildlife observers, wildlife photographers, and for
environmental education, interpretation, and scientific research. The
Refuge will allow hunting on refuge tracts that are large enough to
provide safe, quality hunts where provisions exist to protect
neighboring landowners from hunter trespass. The Refuge would not
directly target acquisition of game fish waters, except as incidental
to acquisition of lands with cave or forest resources. Fishing
currently occurs on Spavinaw Creek in Delaware County which flows a
short distance through one Refuge unit.
Question 5. Locals have expressed concern regarding the use of
roads on lands that fall within the refuge expansion. Would those
living in the area (as well as on in-holdings) be allowed continued use
of the roads?
Response. The Refuge will not close any currently used roads that
access neighboring landowners' properties. Any individual who has an
inholding within government property would retain their legal right to
access their property by existing roads or easements. The Service will
only purchase properties which have a legal ingress/egress easement or
existing public road. The Service has no intention of acquiring
properties which may exist only as an inholding within a private
property, as those habitats would be better protected through
management agreements or technical assistance.
Question 6. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are developing a new regulatory
definition for ``adverse modification'' that will determine what
projects may be conducted within critical habitat. In developing a new
definition for adverse modification, how will FWS distinguish ``adverse
modification'' from ``jeopardy?"
Response. In light of the decision in Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 245 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2001), the Department, in
cooperation with the Department of Commerce, is developing a new
regulatory definition for ``adverse modification.'' We cannot discuss
the content of this rulemaking as it is still in the drafting stage,
however, as you correctly note in your question, the rulemaking will
address the distinction between the jeopardy and adverse modification
standards. We will keep you informed of our progress.
Question 7. Some believe that adverse modification should apply
when a project impacts one of the ``primary constituent elements''
identified by FWS during the designation of critical habitat. Where on
the spectrum between recovery and jeopardy do you believe that adverse
modification should lie?
Response. As stated in our previous answer, we cannot discuss the
content of this rulemaking, but will keep you informed of developments
in this matter.
______
Responses of Steven A. Williams to Additional Questions from Senator
Jeffords
Question 1. There is an $8 million increase in the fisheries budget
request for 2004. However, I do not think that any of this additional
money is going to the 2 fish hatcheries in my State of Vermont. Could
you please elaborate on what criteria were used to determine which
hatcheries would be getting a funding increase?
Response. The President's budget request for fiscal year 2004
included an $8.075 million increase for National Fish Hatchery
operations and maintenance, and a $768,000 increase for fish and
wildlife management within the fisheries program of the Service. The
fisheries program uses its Fisheries Information System, including the
Fisheries Operational Needs System (FONS), to identify priority
projects for increased funding. Field staff identify projects, which
are then evaluated and ranked by Regional Offices. Final selection is
made at the Washington, DC, office in conjunction with the budget
justification.
Question 2. I was disappointed to see the funding request for the
Multi Species Conservation Fund was only $7 million. While this is an
increase of $2 million over last year's request, it is far short of the
combined authorized level. The 5 programs within that fund have
produced great results in the conservation of elephants, rhinoceros,
tigers, great apes and neotropical birds.
As you may know, this committee passed legislation last year that
would have established a similar program for the conservation of marine
turtles. While I do not want to drain funding from these already under-
funded programs, the marine turtle warrants similar attention.
Do you have any suggestions for getting more species and more
funding to these successful programs?
Response. The Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget request for
the Multinational Species Conservation Fund represents a 40 percent
increase over the fiscal year 2003 request. While the fiscal year 2004
request is below the amounts authorized for these programs, given the
competing priorities, the Administration and the Service were pleased
to request an increase in funding for the programs under the
Multinational Species Conservation Fund.
As you mentioned, the Fund has played a vital role in providing
successful on-the-ground support to range countries involved in
elephant, great ape, migratory bird, rhino and tiger conservation and
in generating local matching resources from these countries and non-
governmental organizations to benefit these species. The Service is
aware of the threats facing marine turtles and is reviewing S. 1210,
the Marine Turtle Conservation Act of 2003, passed by the Senate. We
would be happy to review any other proposals the committee members
might have regarding expanding the species covered by the Multinational
Species Conservation Fund.
Question 3. The land acquisition budget request is almost $30
million less than last year's request. While I agree that unmet
operation and maintenance should be addressed, does the decrease in
land acquisition funding mean that there will be no growth in the land-
based programs within the entire Fish and Wildlife Service?
Response. The Federal side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
has made an outstanding contribution to protecting America's land over
the past 38 years. The Service does not have an exact forecast on what
the land acquisition picture will look like in the future. The current
reality is that we are faced with increasing pressure associated with
socioeconomic factors such as urban sprawl, recreational development
and general population growth. With these factors in mind it is very
difficult to gauge whether the pace of land acquisition has crested or
it is still on the rise. However, this request reflects a more limited
Federal land acquisition program with increased emphasis on
conservation partnerships. This request also reflects an emphasis on
the need to balance land acquisition against maintaining lands already
under our jurisdiction. The amounts included in the budget will be used
to fund high priority projects that are important in the Service's
program to protect the Nation's wildlife. The Administration is
dedicated to protecting and passing on to future generations of
Americans our important recreational and scenic lands, wildlife
habitats, improved waterways, and cultural resources.
______
Responses of Steven A. Williams to Additional Questions from Senator
Murkowski
Question 1. The Greenbook (p. 11) notes progress toward competitive
sourcing of some activities, after a contractor identified some 3,233
positions engaged in commercial-type activity. I see that last year 25
positions in realty management were converted to private contract.
Specifically what realty management activities were converted?
Janitorial services? Property assessment?
Response. The Service used the direct conversion method for 25
realty acquisition management support functions. Specifically, the
positions included 9 appraisers, 4 land surveyors, 4 cartographic
technicians, 4 biologist/global information specialist positions, 3
survey technicians, and 1 cartographer.
Question 2. This year you are studying another 100 or so positions
for conversion, all of which are office automation clerk/assistant
positions, but would not convert any until next year. Is this effort
being guided by a plan developed by the original contractor, the
Service, or the Department, and is the apparent slow pace of conversion
a part of the plan?
Response. For fiscal year 2003, 107 office automation clerical
positions were studied using the streamlined approach. The study was
carried out by a contractor under an approach approved by the
Department. The completion of the study, delivered in September 2003,
resulted in the work remaining in-house.
Question 3. In 1904, you have asked for another $1 million to study
another 346 positions. Would this be done under a contract or in-house?
What types of positions will be studied?
Response. The Service will be studying all animal caretaker
positions (over 100) and all biological technician positions (over 550)
by standard competition in accordance with the new Circular A-76.
Question 4. It's noted (pp. 11-12) that an independent audit noted
``reportable conditions.'' It's also noted that ``substantial
corrective actions'' are being developed to correct ``material
weaknesses.'' What exactly are the ``reportable conditions,''
``substantial corrective actions,'' and ``material weaknesses?"
Response. The referenced audit was performed on the Service's
financial statements for fiscal years 2001 and 2002. A brief outline of
the ``reportable conditions;'' ``material weaknesses;'' and
``corrective actions'' follows.
A. Finding (Material Weakness): The Service needs to improve
processes, controls and financial reporting relating to buildings,
structures, and construction work in progress.
Corrective Actions:
<bullet> Established policies for real and personal property
assets.
<bullet> Conducted a comprehensive inventory to verify the
existence of Service real property assets and also to validate
financial information relating to the assets.
<bullet> Implemented internal controls to ensure that real
property data is entered timely and accurately into the Service's
financial system.
<bullet> Established a project action team to determine the
organizational structure, policies, procedures, technical guidance and
standards required to be implemented in the Service to ensure high
quality financial information is maintained and reported relating to
Service property, plant and equipment.
B. Finding (Material Weakness): The Service needs to improve its
controls and processes associated with accounting and financial
reporting.
Corrective Actions:
<bullet> Developed checklists to ensure that major accounting
operations functions are followed and that required reconciliations and
analytical procedures are performed.
<bullet> Hired additional professional staff and participated in
Departmental financial management recruiting programs to ensure
appropriate resources are available to prepare timely and accurate
financial statements.
<bullet> Established standard operating procedures for selected
accounting functions.
C. Finding (Material Weakness): The Service needs to improve its
processes for identifying and reconciling transactions with other
Department Bureaus. (This was a material weakness for all Department
Bureaus.)
Corrective Actions:
<bullet> Implemented a quarterly reconciliation process for
transactions with other Department Bureaus
<bullet> Implemented policies and procedures established by the
Department for intra-Departmental transactions.
D. Finding (Material Weakness): The Service did not properly accrue
accounts payable at year-end.
Corrective Action:
The Service contracted with an independent CPA firm to develop
accounts payable accrual methods based on statistical methodologies.
These methods were implemented for fiscal year-end and quarterly
reporting beginning in July 2003.
E. Finding (Reportable Condition): The Service needs to improve its
controls and processes associated with accounting for and reporting of
capital equipment
Corrective Actions:
<bullet> Established policy requiring timely entry of acquisitions
and disposals into the Service personal property system.
<bullet> Developed reports, processes, and guidelines to
facilitate reconciliations between the personal property system and the
Service's financial system.
F. Finding (Reportable Condition): The Service needs to improve its
security and general controls over its financial management systems
Corrective Actions:
<bullet> Implemented an entity-wide security program in the
Service that conforms to the Department security program
<bullet> Issued technical bulletins on software development and
change control, service continuity, and access controls
G. Finding (Reportable Condition): The Service does not monitor and
enforce financial and performance reporting requirements for grantees
Corrective Action:
The Service established reporting policies to ensure that required
reports are received from grant recipients in accordance with
established timeframes, and are entered into the Service's grant
tracking system.
H. Finding (Reportable Condition): The Service needs to improve
controls over the interface between its electronic acquisition system
(IDEAS-PD) and the Service's financial system, and also needs to
improve the reconciliation process between the two systems
Corrective Actions:
<bullet> Corrected problems with the automated interface between
IDEAS-PD and the financial system
<bullet> Developed reports and implemented processes to facilitate
periodic reconciliations between the two systems
Question 5. It's noted (p. 12) that Law Enforcement has implemented
a no-cost internet service for filing import/export declarations at the
port where the import or export will occur. If on-line filing is
permissible, does the Service allow telephone filing, and if not, why
not, since both are remotely filed. What has been done to make the
system user-friendly for individual trappers who wish to send furs to
an auction outside the country? Have shipments from individuals gone up
or down over the past few years? Has the length of time it takes to
clear shipments from individuals trappers gone up or down, and why?
Does the person filing pay different fees depending on whether a
physical inspection is needed?
Response. In 2003, the Service's Office of Law Enforcement
implemented a no-cost internet service for declaring wildlife shipments
which is available for use by all importers and exporters, including
fur trappers. Called ``eDecs,'' this easy-to-use system speeds the
declaration process for both our wildlife trade customers and wildlife
inspectors, expediting shipment clearance and facilitating legal trade.
For example, fur trappers who frequently send similar shipments to
similar destinations no longer need to fill out paper forms over and
over repeating basic information that remains the same from one
shipment to the next. The system not only stores basic identifying data
for users, it also keeps a list of the species they declare so that
they can select information from this list rather than retyping species
data each time they file a declaration. Trappers can access past
declarations and communicate directly with wildlife inspectors by e-
mail to ask questions and resolve any problems. No special software is
required to use the system. Recent upgrades include the addition on an
on-line billing and payment feature for importers and exporters subject
to user fees.
Although the Service has been able to take advantage of the
public's widespread access to the Internet to offer the ease and
convenience of on-line filing, our legal mandates and data collection
requirements limit our ability to offer telephone filing as an option
for wildlife importers and exporters. With eDecs, the user or inspector
can print out the declaration form needed for the shipment to clear
Customs and fax or present it at the appropriate port along with any
permits that might be required. With on-line filing, we can
automatically collect the information about the type and quantity of
wildlife in trade that we need to fulfill our trade monitoring and
reporting responsibilities under the Convention on International Trade
in Endangered Species. Use of a telephone filing system would require
Service staff to retrieve and manually input this information into our
trade data base, adding another step to the clearance process.
While the Service does not have the number of shipments declared
for import or export currently on hand, we do know that introduction of
our electronic declaration system has reduced the amount of time needed
to clear shipments from individual trappers. Trappers can more easily
communicate with inspectors and more quickly input and share data and
documents. Most importantly, they do not have to travel to the actual
port where imports or exports will occur. For example, a trapper
working in a remote location can send a shipment to a designated port,
have the shipment held while completing all the necessary documentation
remotely, and then have it exported without ever having to physically
meet with an inspector or travel to the port. Once a shipment has been
cleared, a trapper can print out the declaration (without needing to
get it physically stamped).
Any shipment requiring Service clearance may be subject to physical
inspection. Our user fees reflect the full range of inspection duties
and do not vary based on whether or not a physical inspection is
conducted.
Question 6. This year marks the Refuge system Centennial. It looks
as though activities are scheduled for nearly every Refuge. What is the
estimated cost of these activities, including the time Refuge and other
Service employees are putting in to support them?
Response. The National Wildlife Refuge System's records show that
there were 236 local events held during the centennial year. The
average cost to the government for the local events was approximately
$3,000. The signature event was held at Pelican Island National
Wildlife Refuge, the nation's first National Wildlife Refuge. This
national event cost $917,000, of which private partners contributed
approximately $243,000.
Question 7. The Greenbook notes (p. 63) that although the Service
has in a number of cases deemed it ``not prudent'' to designate
critical habitat, the courts have held the Service to be in error in a
number of cases. Do you agree? In your view, have these cases been
pursued adequately? In how many cases has the Service settled with
plaintiffs? Are there cases you feel should have been pursued but were
not? If so, why?
Response. Prior to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit's decision in Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S.
Department of the Interior, 113 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 1997), the Service
found designation of critical habitat ``not prudent'' under the ESA.
The NRDC decision, however, held that Section 4 of the ESA has strict,
non-discretionary duties and deadlines for the processing of listing
and critical habitat actions, and rendered indefensible the vast
majority of our findings that designation of critical habitat was not
prudent. Subsequent to that decision, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit, in Forest Guardians v. Babbitt, 174 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir.
1999), held that district courts have no power to allow us to allocate
funds to the highest priority actions, and must instead order us to act
as soon as possible on whatever backlogged action comes before them.
Most courts have followed the Tenth Circuit's lead. We believe that
these cases have been adequately pursued; however, we are no longer
operating under a system that allows us to prioritize resources to
address the most significant biological needs. We currently estimate
that we have settled approximately a dozen of these critical habitat-
related litigations. As noted above, given the information provided
above, we believe that settlement has been a prudent course in these
matters.
Question 8. The Greenbook notes (p. 65) that challenges to critical
habitat designations are increasingly based on a ruling from the 10th
Circuit Court that addressed the proper extent of required economic
analyses. Does the Service regard this as dispositive for cases in
other areas?
Response. The Service considers the New Mexico Cattlegrowers
decision to be mandatory authority for the 10th Circuit. The Service
has also incorporated this holding into all of its economic analyses
and, as required under the decision, includes all the attendant costs
associated with the designation of critical habitat in its economic
analysis.
Question 9. The Greenbook notes (p. 64) that any interested party
may petition for listing or delisting, then discusses the steps that
follow. However, all of the described steps involve listing. Please
describe the process for delisting. Is the timeline for steps toward
delisting the same as for listing, or longer? Please explain.
Response. Delisting is the removal of a species from the Federal
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, and results
from successful recovery efforts, a determination that the listing was
in error, or, in some cases, a finding that the species is extinct. In
cases where delisting is considered due to recovery, the Service
follows a process similar to that which is followed when a species is
considered for listing. The Service must determine that the species is
not threatened based on a number of factors, including population size,
recruitment, stability of habitat quality and quantity, and control or
elimination of the threats.
If the Service determines the threats have been sufficiently
reduced, we may consider either downlisting or delisting the species.
When down-or delisting, we first propose the action in the Federal
Register, and at the same time seek the opinion of independent species
experts, other agencies, including State biologists, and the public.
Based upon an analysis of comments received, the Service makes a
decision on whether to complete the proposed action or maintain the
species status as it is. A final decision is announced in the Federal
Register.
If the delisting action results from a petition, the timeline is
the same as for petitions to list.
More detailed information on this topic can be found on our website
at http://endangered.fws.gov/recovery/index.html#program.
Question 10. The Greenbook notes (p. 67) that the necessity of
responding to court orders on listings has prevented the Service in
recent years from conducting listing activities according to species'
greatest risk of extinction, and that the Service is in the process of
developing a system to prioritize its activities. If this is your view,
what efforts has the Service made to educate the public about this
problem? Would you say more public relations effort has gone into this
issue or into publicizing the Refuge Centennial?
Response. A great deal of effort and resources have been directed
toward making the public aware of the problems surrounding the Section
4 Program. The Department has testified before Congress on several
occasions concerning the problem. Moreover, the Service has responded
to media and public inquiries on the problem and has provided the
public with news releases to describe the problem. In addition, the
Service's main webpage, located at www.endangered.fws.gov, contains a
great deal of information on the Section 4 Program.
The Refuge Centennial is a 1-year event that the Service worked
hard to publicize, but endangered species issues are a long-term
commitment that the Service has been addressing as a significant part
of its mission. This has involved a great deal of outreach,
coordination, and public education.
Question 11. The Greenbook identifies planned reductions in travel
funding, noting that this will reduce the frequency of employee
relocations from one office to another. It also notes that Service
employees ``frequently travel to meetings such as professional
associations.'' Does the Service limit reimbursement for travel to such
meetings to personnel who are actively engaged at the meeting, such as
giving a speech or seminar, or is it common to reimburse employees who
are simply attending?
Response. The Service does not have an absolute policy to reimburse
employees for travel related costs of attending meetings of
professional associations. Rather, the reimbursement is left to the
discretion of the individual employee's supervisor. If the supervisor
determines that the attendance at such meetings benefits the Service,
the supervisor can approve reimbursement for travel costs. Among the
benefits that can be derived are: receiving training in industry
standards, professional development, continuing education, and
promoting awareness of Service projects and initiatives.
Question 12. What is the currently accepted definition of ``adverse
modification'' as it applies to critical habitat? Please describe how
this adequately discriminates between modifications that are likely to
be adverse to the species continued existence, modifications that may
be adverse, and modifications where the effect is unknown. Is there a
policy which requires dealing with the latter as though the unknown
effect will be adverse? Would you recommend any changes in the statutes
covering this issue?
Response. Adverse modification is currently defined in our
regulations as ``a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably
diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the survival and
recovery of a listed species. Such alterations include, but are not
limited to, alterations adversely modifying any of those physical or
biological features that were the basis for determining the habitat to
be critical.'' The issue of how to handle situations where
modifications are likely to or may adversely affect the species and
modifications where the effects are unknown is not contained in this
definition. Congress contemplated the issue of inadequate information
during the development of the 1979 amendments to the ESA and the
Service implements the ESA in accordance with the intent expressed in
the Conference Report (No. 96-697, at 1442, section 4). This report
reads: ``The amendment will permit the wildlife agencies to frame their
Section 7(b) opinions on the best evidence that is available or can be
developed during consultation. . . . This language continues to give
the benefit of the doubt to the species, and it would continue to place
the burden on the action agency to demonstrate to the consulting agency
that its action will not violate Section 7(a)(2).'' Thus, the Service
evaluates the best available information that will assist in
formulating a reasonable estimate of the anticipated effects. This is
extremely fact specific and, therefore, results vary with each
individual situation. No statutory changes are recommended.
Question 13. In an inset (p. 81), the Greenbook notes that an
independent study estimated that without the Endangered Species Act,
172 species might have become extinct between 1973 and 1998 instead of
just seven species. Do you agree that the ESA was the deciding factor
in all these cases? Of the 172 species, how many are now considered to
be ``recovered?"
Response. The Greenbook references a study by Mark Schwartz, a
biologist at the University of California Davis (Schwartz, M., 1999,
Choosing the Appropriate Scale of Reserves for Conservation, Annu. Rev.
Ecol. Syst. 30:83-108). In this study, Schwartz developed a modeled
estimate of the number of listed species expected to go extinct since
listing, assuming that extinction is a random process and the ESA
provides no benefits protecting listed species from extinction. He
found that 192 (we incorrectly cited 172 in the Greenbook) of the 1143
then-listed species would have gone extinct under these assumptions,
compared to only 7 listed species then known to have become extinct.
Because Schwartz's study was a modeled estimate, it did not identify
specific species likely to have become extinct. Because we don't know
which species would likely have become extinct, we cannot determine
which of those species would now be considered recovered.
Question 14. The Greenbook notes (p. 83-86) that in fiscal year
2002, one species was delisted due to recovery, one species was
proposed for delisting, and one species was downlisted, although you
had hoped to delist three species. This fiscal year, you are also
hoping to delist three and to downlist two. Now that we are well into
fiscal year 2003, do you still anticipate meeting this goal? Are some
of these the same species for which delisting was not completed last
year?
Response. In fiscal year 2003, the Service proposed and finalized
the reclassification of five species and delisted two species due to
recovery. One of the species delisted in fiscal year 2003, the Hoover's
wooly star, was proposed for delisting in fiscal year 2002.
Question 15. I understand you are hoping to delist a total of four
species in fiscal year 2004. Are any of these species which were
scheduled for earlier delisting?
Response. Yes. A proposed listing rule for the Tinian Monarch was
published on February 22, 1999, and a final rule was originally
scheduled for fiscal year 2003. However, finalizing this delisting rule
was delayed due to the need to further address the threat of potential
establishment of a brown tree snake population on the island of Tinian.
Question 16. To what degree are endangered species recovery
planning and recovery activities hindered by litigation affecting
listing, delisting and the designation of critical habitat?
Response. We believe the litigation has impacted recovery planning
and activities to some degree, as we must balance all of our priorities
with the funding requested and provided. In order to meet court orders
and settlement agreements related to the Service's listing program, the
Administration has requested increases for the listing program. This
increase affects how much we request for all of our priorities, not
just recovery.
Question 17. The Greenbook notes (p. 138) that the Refuge Roads
program created by TEA-21 is limited to maintenance of public-use roads
and to constructing parking lots, roadside rest areas and bicycle/
pedestrian facilities. In Alaska at least, traditional means of access
are protected by the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act,
including the use of snowmachines. Would you support allowing the
Refuge Roads program, or other public-lands road and trail programs, to
be used to mark and maintain snowmachine trails where snowmachining is
a legal activity?
Response. Service regulations classify snow machines as off road
vehicles. By law, the Refuge Roads program is currently limited to
public use roads, parking lots, rest area facilities and provisions for
bicycles and pedestrians. As a result, by law the Service may not use
Federal Lands Highway funding for such trails because this is not an
eligible program activity.
Alaska refuges do not have specifically marked or identified trails
just for snow machines. In general, persons travel openly by snow
machine without being limited to specific trails. The Service has not
identified any need to within our priority systems mark and maintain
snow machine trails.
Question 18. The Service is one of the key players in the
management of subsistence in Alaska under Title VIII of the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act. How has this affected the
Service's cost of operation? Has the total cost been identified for
fiscal year 2004?
Response. The Service, in coordination with the National Park
Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the
U.S. Forest Service, is the lead Federal agency for administering the
Federal Subsistence Management Program in Alaska. The program began in
1990 with the primary emphasis on managing subsistence hunting on
public lands in Alaska, with minimal jurisdiction for managing
subsistence fisheries. The Service received an initial appropriation in
the early 1990's of $4.225 million to administer the program.
Following the expansion of jurisdiction into navigable waters
pursuant the Ninth Circuit Court ruling in Katie John v. United States,
the Service received an additional $11.027 million in fiscal year 2001
to take on this new and significant role in managing subsistence
fisheries. These funds provide for the administration and operation of
the Federal Subsistence Board and support for ten Regional Advisory
Councils in regulating subsistence hunting and fishing on the public
lands in Alaska; liaison and coordination with the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game and with participating agencies; law enforcement
operations; subsistence resource and harvest monitoring programs
through agreements with the State, Native organizations and others; and
communicating with Alaskans about the program. The approximate Service
funding in fiscal year 2004 for Alaska subsistence issues is $15.09
million, with a total of about $4.2 million for refuges and $10.89
million for fisheries; however, other agencies also provide funds for
Alaska subsistence issues.
Question 19. The Greenbook (p. 5) indicates you are requesting an
additional 35 full-time equivalency positions (FTEs). However, p. 1 of
the ``Field Station List in the back of the book seems to indicate 41
new positions in Alaska alone. Which is the accurate number? Of those
identified in the ``Field Station List,'' six are identified as
``Assistant Regional Director--Subsistence Management.'' Why does
subsistence management require so many assistant regional directors?
Response. The table on page 5 of the Greenbook reflects the total
FTE change for fiscal year 2004 in all appropriations. The table on
pages 33 and 34 shows that this consists of an increase of 84 FTEs in
the Resource Management appropriation, 2 in the Multinational Species
Conservation Fund and a decrease of 51 FTEs allocated by the Bureau of
Land Management for Wildland Fire Management. FTE use may vary widely
on an annual basis depending on a number of factors including planned
work, availability of contractor for seasonal work, summer hiring
program, volunteer support, and position vacancies.
There is only one Assistant Regional Director for Subsistence
Management. The funding and FTEs indicated on the Field Station List
represent the total staff assigned to the office.
Question 20. The Service presently charges a $55 inspection fee for
each export shipment of fur pelts and products. For individual trappers
and operators handling only small numbers of skins, this can be cost-
prohibitive, forcing them to sell at a lower price to a consolidator.
Years ago, there was an exemption for shipments valued at less than
$25,000, which was adopted after a study indicated that it was not
cost-effective to apply the same rules for small shipments. Has the
Service conducted a study to determine that the $55 fee for shipments
of even one or two items is appropriate to the cost of inspection for
small shippers v. large? What can the Service do to reduce harm to
small businesses by ensuring that costs are more equitably distributed?
Response. The Service's $55 inspection fee per shipment was
introduced in 1996 following four separate analysis of our import-
export license and user fee policies. These studies, which were
conducted by the Department of the Interior, Office of the Inspector
General, General Accounting Office, and independent non-government
organizations, all recommended that we should change our regulations to
recover the full cost of inspections provided to individuals and
businesses.
Our current user fee system falls short of the goal of full ``user
funding,'' since today it only recovers about 50 percent of the costs
of the wildlife inspection program from the businesses we regulate. The
fee system, however, deals uniformly with the business community,
requiring all commercial wildlife importers and exporters to be
licensed and pay a standard inspection fee of $55 per shipment,
regardless of value. The nature of inspection services and the
administrative support they require make it difficult to make a direct
correlation between shipment value and inspection costs. Shipments of
high value do not necessarily require more time or work to inspect than
less valuable shipments.
The present fee system reflects the belief that the uniform
application of license and fee requirements would be the most equitable
and administratively efficient way to operate our wildlife inspection
program and uphold our wildlife trade enforcement responsibilities. We
have not conducted a study to analyze the appropriateness of our
uniform $55 inspection fee because much of the same work at the same
cost must be completed to inspect and clear any shipment regardless of
its size or value. We are, however, planning to re-examine our fee
structure as part of our ongoing effort to maintain an effective and
efficient wildlife inspection program. While adequate cost recovery
must, of necessity, remain an objective, we are also committed to
dealing fairly with wildlife-based businesses.
We demonstrated this commitment several years ago when we exempted
certain North American fur shipments from our basic per-shipment user
fee. This exemption, which applies to shipments containing 100 or fewer
furs from animals taken in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, was
intended to reduce the economic burden on individuals who trap, hunt,
and trade small quantities of furs. This exemption remains in effect.
Question 21. It is my understanding that the computer systems used
by the Service to track fur imports and exports are not compatible with
those used by the Customs Service, which results in additional delays
and costs. What steps are being taken to correct this problem?
Response. In July 2000, the Service terminated participation in the
U.S. Customs Service's Automated Commercial System (ACS). Over the
years, our wildlife inspection program had experienced numerous and
persistent problems using the system's automated broker interface to
file and collect wildlife trade data. Even while operating on ACS, the
Service continued to require most importers and exporters to file both
electronic and paper entries. ACS only allowed joint Customs/FWS
processing of a limited number of large volume commercial imports.
Service inspection responsibilities, however, encompass personal
imports, small commercial shipments, museum and scientific imports,
mail shipments, and all wildlife exports. We thus failed to achieve the
paperwork reduction and customer service goals that were the original
reason for joining ACS.
At that time, we made a commitment to pursue the independent
development of an automated declaration system for all wildlife imports
and exports regardless of shipment size, purpose, and method of
transport (which we describe in our response to Question 5) and to work
toward a long-term goal of re-establishing direct electronic linkage
with Customs for clearing wildlife shipments. While lack of linkage has
created an additional workload for our wildlife inspectors, it has not
produced inordinate delays or additional expense for our import/export
customers.
We are now participating in an interagency effort to create an
International Trade Data System, which will link all Federal inspection
agencies dealing with imports and exports.