ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT REAUTHORIZATION THURSDAY, JULY 20, 1995 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, WILDLIFE, Washington, DC. NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SPECIES CONSERVATION The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 9:04 a.m. in room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Dirk Kempthorne (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Kempthorne, Thomas, Warner, Reid, and Chafee [ex officio]. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Senator KEMPTHORNE. Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. I'll call this hearing to order. I would like to welcome all of you to the discussion that will take place and also to acknowledge that Senator Chafee, the chairman of the Full Environment and Public Works Committee, is here with us this morning and we appreciate that greatly. Today we hold the second in a series of hearings on the Endangered Species Act. In this hearing we will explore the recovery, delisting and downlisting provisions in the Endangered Species Act. We will also examine the effect that ESA has internationally. Before this hearing is over, I hope we will all agree that the ESA recovery process, as mandated by law and implemented by regulation, must be changed. All of us should agree that recovery plans should be timely written, based on science, involve the State and local governments and their citizens who are directly affected, offer decisionmakers options for protecting species while at the same time minimizing their effects on the human species. If we can achieve these goals, we will reduce the cynicism and downright anger among folks whose lives are adversely affected by this Act. It is important to understand the recovery process. In simple terms, once a species is listed as threatened or endangered, the Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service may prepare a recovery plan for that species-but they don't have to. While that plan is being prepared, Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service must be consulted and approve any activity involving Federal actions that might affect the species. (355) This often results in recovery decisions being made without or before a systematic recovery plan is available. The recovery process with or without a plan is slow, lacks important data and leaves in limbo a number of projects and activities. Listen to these facts: The February 1995 issue of Conservation Biology said that there were huge delays in the writing of 314 recovery plans completed through August 1991. The average time and I repeat, the average time it took to write a recovery plan involving an animal was 11.3 years. For plants, it took 4.1 years. Once they were finally written, 81 percent of recovery plans lacked significant biological data. As one measure of the lack of scientific data, only 44 percent of original recovery plans bothered to estimate the target number for species the recovery plans sought to protect. Of those which did provide a target, nearly half were guesses or best estimates and were not derived from census or sample surveys. One of the authors of this survey, Michael Scott of the University of Idaho, is with us today and I look forward to his testimony. The National Wilderness Institute found that little good science went into several recovery plans. They quoted recognizable scientists who said, and now I quote, with regard to the Cave Crayfish, "Sufficient data to estimate population size or trends is lacking." With regard to the Knowlton Cactus, quote, "There is inadequate biological data for this cactus." The Louisiana Pearlshell Mussel, quote, "There is practically no information on the life history, population levels and habitat requirements for this species." I would ask that we now make part of the record these two reports. While the recovery plans is being prepared, many projects and activities are left in limbo waiting for section 7 consultation by Federal agencies. Those who write the recovery plans are not the ones that implement it, often making the recovery plan irrelevant. If a landowner performs activities that are consistent with a recovery plan, that action can be challenged and stopped. Moreover, the recovery plan does not make Federal agencies accountable for their actions in recovering species. In my mind, the recovery process ought to be the heart and soul of the Endangered Species Act, and it is not. It's a hollow shell of what it ought to be. I'll ask witnesses their thoughts for making the recovery plan process meaningful and effective, but it seems to me that changes are needed to reduce the time taken to prepare the plans, to involve peer reviewed science in their development, to give policymakers alternatives in recovery species that take into account ways to minimize effects on citizens and to involve State and local officials and citizens directly affected by recovery plans in the drafting of a recovery plan. I know firsthand how the recovery process affects real people. Take, for example, Idaho's experience with salmon. The sockeye has been listed as an endangered species and a recovery plan is being developed by the National Marine Fisheries Service. That plan leaves out an important segment of the salmon life cycle, and that is the ocean. Salmon spend two-thirds of their lives at sea. Yet, National Marine Fisheries Service does not analyze the ocean part of the salmon habitat, nor address the challenges that face the 0 fish there. The writing of an adequate, effective, specific plan for the salmon is essential for the people of Idaho because jobs and livelihoods hang in the balance. The IdaPine Lumber mill in Grangeville, ID, recently was forced to close its doors, costing 150 mill workers their jobs due to the lack of an adequate recovery plan for the salmon. The recovery process raises the related issue of delisting or downlisting species no longer threatened or endangered. Right now we have nearly 1000 species on the threatened or endangered species list but fewer than 10 species have been delisted. The final issue that we will look at today are the international issues of poaching and illegal trade, and the effect of the Endangered Species Act and the convention on International Trade on the management of resources. I will have more to say about this issue after we conclude testimony this morning. With that, let me call upon Senator Chafee for comments he would like to make. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND Senator CHAFEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I'm delighted you're holding this hearing today focusing on these two points on the species recovery and on the international issues. I know you join with me giving a special warm greeting and welcome to the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Ms. Mollie Beattie, who is with us today. Ms. BEATTIE. Thank you, Senator. Senator CHAFEE. I know I speak for all of us in wishing you the very best in the days ahead. It seems to me during these discussions on the listings and consultations and all of that, sometimes we lose sight of the ultimate goal of the Endangered Species Act, which the chairman has spoken about, and that's the recovery. While it's true there has been what seems to be a dismal record out there, there have been some successes with whooping cranes, brown pelicans, peregrine falcons. Speaking of peregrine falcons, in Tuesday's newspaper I think everybody saw that the peregrine falcon has come back, at least two some degree. A baby one was born 75 feet up on the national shrine of the immaculate conception-that's a good place to be born, I guess. [Laughter.] Senator CHAFEE. It's very, very exciting about the peregrine falcon. It's interesting that they were nearly wiped out by the DDT. Then we banned the DDT and they're coming back, slowly but they are coming back. However, as the chairman pointed out, many species are languishing on the endangered species list. Almost half of the threatened and endangered species listed in the United States are not covered by approved recovery plans, and that's what we've got to get on with. I would like to make several points in connection with the recovery plans: First, I think recovery efforts should focus on groups of species that are dependent upon the same habitat. The name of this game is habitat, I think. Second, local governments-and the chairman touched on thislocal governments, and landowners, and businesses, and other members of the public affected by the recovery plans ought to be involved in the development and the implementation of the plans. Third, as stated in the National Academy of Scientists report, "No recovery plan, however good it might be, will prevent extinction or promote recovery if it is not implemented expeditiously." In other words, we've got to get on with this. Now the second phase of today's hearing deals with the international conservation efforts. We're going to consider how our nation's obligation under CITES is proceeding. I think we've got to bear this in mind in our country. What kind of a message would the United States be sending around the world if we were to eliminate or weaken substantially the protections of the Endangered Species Act. Our Act has been a model that's been used worldwide by nations seeking to conserve biodiversity. If a powerful and rich nation like ours can't do anything in this area, how do we expect these other countries to do something? So we really are a role model and the role of role models is to be a model, and, therefore, that puts extra pressure on us, and I think we've got to step up to the mark. It's significant that two of our witnesses have traveled from Africa who are going to be testifying today. So, Mr. Chairman, I think you've put together a very, very good hearing today, and if I'm sometimes coming and going, it's only because in the Finance Committee we have a hearing on Medicare, something I've been deeply involved with. So I'll be trying to ride two horses at once, probably both unsuccessfully. Thank you. [The statement and article submitted by Senator Chafee follow:] STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND Mr. Chairman, thank you for scheduling this hearing to consider two important aspects of the Endangered Species Act-species recovery, and international issues. I am especially pleased to welcome the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Mollie Beattie, this morning. Sometimes it seems that during all the hours of discussion of listings and consultations, and prohibitions and permits-we lose sight of the ultimate goal of the Endangered Species Act. What's that? The recovery of the wildlife and plants that are on the threatened and endangered species list. While many decry what they view as the dismal record of the ESA, the Act has helped achieve some extraordinary successes. Populations of whooping cranes, brown pelicans, and peregrine falcons have come back from near extinction. Grizzly bear populations have rebounded and are likely to be delisted altogether. Both the California gray whale and the American alligator have been removed from the list of threatened and endangered species. And, our national symbol-the bald eagle has been saved. However, many species are languishing on the endangered species list. And, almost half of the threatened and endangered species listed in the United States are not covered by approved recovery plans. The recovery requirements under Section 4 of the ESA are quite general and open ended. Perhaps this makes sense. The factors that threaten the survival of a listed species and the economic considerations at issue are probably as varied as the species themselves. Certainly the scientific issues related to recovery-concerning such things as population viability levels and habitat needs are often complex and difficult. After considering the record of the ESA, a few things do seem clear: First, recovery efforts should focus on groups of species that are dependent on the same habitat or ecosystem in order to make the best use of our limited resources. Second, local governments and landowners, businesses and other members of the public affected by recovery plans must be involved in the development and implementation of these plans for them to succeed. And, third, as stated in a report of the National Academy of Scientists, "no recovery plan, however good it might be, will help prevent extinction or promote recovery if it is not implemented expeditiously." I hope that today's witnesses will address some of these points. Mr. Chairman, international conservation efforts are often overlooked as we consider the effects of the ESA. I am pleased that the Subcommittee is making an effort to consider how the Act works to fulfill our nation's obligation under CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora), and how our actions affect foreign species and foreign governments. Another international concern that we should keep in mind is: what kind of message would the United States be sending around the world if we were to eliminate or weaken substantially the protections of the ESA? Our Endangered Species Act has been a model used worldwide by nations seeking to conserve biodiversity. If our powerful country will not preserve habitat necessary to maintain its diversity of wild flora and fauna, what standing do we have with foreign nations who we hope will curtail activities that destroy their natural resources? It is significant that two of our witnesses have travelled from Africa to present their views on the ESA. I look forward to hearing from them, and from all the witnesses, and to working together toward thoughtful, relevant solutions to the problems that exist under the ESA. Thank you. SAVING NORTH AMERICA'S BELEAGUERED BATS (By Merlin D. Tuttle) No stealth aircraft could be more sophisticated than this California leaf-nosed bat. It swoops so quietly through the desert night that it is called a "whispering bat." Its eyes can spot a sleeping insect, and its huge ears can pick up the sounds of a caterpillar's munching jaws. Only on the darkest of nights does this bat activate its ultimate detector: Through its nose it emits high-frequency, low-intensity echolocation signals created by contracting muscles in its larynx. Sound waves return to its ears after bouncing off doomed prey. This amazing bat is one of 44 North American species studied by the author. He has long emphasized the beneficial nature of bats, which feed voraciously on insect pests that yearly cost farmers and foresters billions of dollars in losses. Bats also pollinate plants and disperse their seeds. Although many myths have been dispelled, bats still need protection from vandals and from the growing practice of sealing up caves and mines that the animals need to survive. For a wildlife conservationist trying to make a convert, there's nothing more helpful than a good object lesson in economics especially if the animals in need of protection have been maligned as much as bats. In 1968 I was a young zoologist in Tennessee studying bats and attempting to change public misconceptions about them. I had banded thousands, and while observing their migratory movements, I met an old farmer near Knoxville who had a cave on his property that sheltered a large colony of gray bats, a species that had dwindled alarmingly because of persecution. When I asked permission to investigate his cave, he said, "Fine, but please kill all the bats you can find." He gave no specific objections. He simply didn't want bats on his land. I found the cave and its bats and saw immediately why this particular colony had been little disturbed—a deep stream flowed into and through the cave. I needed a rubber raft and chest waders to make it inside, where I found about 50,000 gray bats, mostly females nursing their young. Beneath their roost I also discovered numerous insect wings, including those of potato beetles. Next to the cave lay a large field of the farmer's potatoes. When I showed a handful of the wings to the farmer, he knew exactly which insects they belonged to and how damaging they were to his crop. But he had no idea that the bats were eating the beetles. He suddenly realized what an asset he owned, |