Hummm. Interesting........

Peggi
>============================================================
>
>
>TESTIMONY OF JAMIE RAPPAPORT CLARK DIRECTOR OF THE U.S. FISH AND
>WILDLIFE SERVICE BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC
>WORKS ON S. 1180 THE ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY ACT OF 1997
>September 23, 1997
>
>Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity
>to speak with you today about this very important legislation to
>reauthorize the ESA. It is fitting that I would be appearing before you
>today at my first legislative hearing after my confirmation to give our
>views on the Endangered Species Recovery Act of 1997. Having served as
>the lead program manager for the Endangered Species Program, I have,
>along with many of you, been deeply involved with the five-year quest for
>a reauthorized and strengthened Endangered Species Act. I would like to
>pay tribute to you Mr. Chairman and Senators Kempthorne, Baucus, and
>Reid and your staffs for the dedication and hard work that made the
>introduction of this bill possible.
>
>I am very encouraged that bipartisan legislation has been introduced to
>reauthorize one of the nation's premier conservation laws. For too long,
>we heard only complaints from parties on all sides of this issue and
>there were precious few who offered constructive solutions. Instead of
>more of the same, the leadership of the Environment Committee rolled up
>their sleeves in a serious effort to address concerns associated with
>current implementation of the Act. We appreciated your inviting staff
>from the Departments of the Interior, Commerce and Justice to provide
>technical assistance and support to the process. We also welcomed the
>opportunities the Committee provided to Secretary Babbitt, myself and
>other officials to work with you during this process. We are also
>pleased that another bipartisan bill, H.R. 2351 has been introduced in
>the House by Congressman Miller and that the leadership of the House
>Resources Committee has begun tentative, bipartisan discussions in an
>effort to seek common ground on reauthorization. All of these events are
>positive developments and suggest that at long last, legislative gridlock
>on ESA reauthorization is coming to an end.
>
>The result of your efforts in the Senate is legislation that has been
>carefully crafted to maintain the essential strengths of the current law
>while taking steps to make it work better for species conservation, the
>States, and affected landowners. The Administration is very pleased that
>the bill maintains as the foundation of the listing process the
>requirement that decisions be grounded solely on biological
>considerations and sound science; that the essential protections under
>Sections 7 and 9 remain intact; that the opportunity for participation
>by the States, affected landowners, and the general public is increased;
>and foremost, that species recovery receives enhanced recognition as the
>centerpiece of the Act.
>
>On balance, we believe that S. 1180 will strengthen our ability to
>conserve endangered, threatened and declining species. The Administration
>supports enactment of the bill subject to the reconciliation of several
>issues set forth in this testimony. Prior to the Committee markup of S.
>1180, the Administration will provide the Committee with a list of other
>technical and clarifying amendments, as well as suggested report
>language to accompany key provisions of the bill. We will also provide
>additional technical amendments as the other federal agencies complete
>their review.
>
>Reform of the implementation of the Endangered Species Act has been a
>major focus of this Administration and we were pleased to see that your
>bill contains many of the reforms and policies that the Administration
>has proposed and carried out over the past few years to improve the
>Act's effectiveness in species conservation and fairness for landowners.
>When the Departments of the Interior and Commerce announced our 10 point
>plan to improve implementation of the Endangered Species Act in March of
>1995, we recognized that the Act needed to be more effective in
>conserving species and that we needed to engage landowners as partners
>in conservation, not as adversaries. We acknowledge that we must provide
>landowners with greater certainty and work with them in a more open,
>flexible manner with new incentives to increase their involvement in
>conservation actions. After five years of developing a "new ESA" through
>Administrative reforms, we would welcome the codification of many of the
>reforms we have now established.
>
>We believe S. 1180 will strengthen our ability to conserve threatened
>and endangered species by including provisions that:
>Enhance Recovery. Twenty-three years of experience has taught us that
>conserving multiple species in a comprehensive programmatic fashion is
>not only more efficient, it is better for the species. This bill
>authorizes and encourages conservation plans that address multiple
>species associated with the same habitat such as the Natural Communities
>Conservation Planning (NCCP) program currently being implemented in
>southern California. Since 1991 this innovative ecosystem based
>management program has been successfully balancing the need to preserve
>the unique species of the coastal sage scrub ecosystem with the desired
>economic development of the area. The bill also: provides for increased
>federal, state and public involvement in the recovery planning and
>implementation process; clarifies the role of federal agencies in
>species recovery efforts; specifies deadlines for the completion of both
>draft and final plans; and provides for biological benchmarks to measure
>progress on the road to recovery.
>
>Ensure the Use of Sound Science. The use of sound science has been
>highlighted by our reforms through the addition of peer review to
>listing decisions, new petition management guidelines, and increased
>information sharing with states. The bill's incorporation of peer review
>and enhanced state involvement recognizes the importance of these
>measures in decision making. Although we support the peer review
>requirement in the bill for listing decisions, we remain concerned that
>requiring that the National Academy of Sciences produce a list from
>which qualified experts are chosen is unnecessary and potentially costly
>and burdensome. We would suggest requiring that three, independent and
>qualified experts be chosen by the Secretary, in keeping with our
>current procedure.
>
>Provide incentives and certainty for landowners. Many private interests
>are willing to help conserve species, but landowners and businesses need
>regulatory certainty upon which they can base long-term economic
>decisions. Such certainty is vital to encouraging private landowners to
>participate in conservation planning. The bill addresses one of the
>major concerns regarding conservation plans and the "No Surprises" policy
>by requiring monitoring of conservation plans to better assess their
>impacts on species conservation. S. 1180 also adopts a number of
>important Administration reforms, including our "No Surprises" policy,
>candidate conservation agreement policy and "no-take" agreement program,
>thereby providing incentives for public support and involvement in
>species conservation.
>
>The Act has been criticized for inadvertently encouraging landowners to
>destroy wildlife habitat because they fear possible restrictions on the
>future use of their property if additional endangered species are
>attracted to improved habitat. S. 1180 incorporates the Administration's
>"Safe Harbor" policy, which removes the regulatory disincentive
>associated with enhancing habitat for endangered species and thus
>encourages pro-active conservation efforts. We interpret the language in
>the bill as being consistent with our Safe Harbor policy. This policy
>has already generated considerable success in the southeast where 20,000
>acres have been improved as endangered red-cockaded woodpecker habitat
>under these agreements. Similar agreements are in place in Texas and are
>helping to restore the Aplomado falcon to Texas for the first time in 50
>years. The bill also authorizes a number of incentive programs to
>encourage landowners to participate in species conservation, including
>conservation and recovery planning, that if adequately funded could
>greatly aid species conservation efforts.
>
>Improve Governmental and Public Involvement. Involvement of other Federal
>agencies, states, the tribes, affected public landowners and
>environmental and scientific communities is key to endangered species
>conservation and has been a cornerstone of our 10 point plan. S. 1180
>furthers this goal by enhancing public participation processes and by
>emphasizing State-Federal partnerships for endangered species
>conservation especially in the areas of recovery and conservation
>planning, as well as many others.
>
>Eliminate threats to species. Species are conserved most efficiently and
>least expensively when we can remove threats facing them through
>conservation measures undertaken before they have declined to very low
>numbers. We can act before species require listing and before recovery
>options are limited, and sometimes expensive. This bill endorses our
>candidate conservation agreement initiative which encourages federal
>agencies and our partners to reach agreement on measures to conserve
>candidate and proposed species that remove threats to species and that
>can preclude the need to list these species in the future. The Department
>has a number of these agreements including an agreement in Utah which
>removed the threats facing the Virgin River spinedace and avoided the
>need to list this fish due to the efforts of local governments working
>closely with the Service. In the Midwest, a successful conservation
>agreement is bringing together the States of Kentucky, Illinois, and
>Indiana with the Farm Bureau and the coal industry to protect the copper
>belly watersnake. A key factor leading to our support of this
>legislation has been the willingness of the sponsors to make a number of
>improvements since the January draft. The Committee leadership is to be
>commended for allowing technical comment and discussion upon the January
>draft and responding to many concerns that were raised through that
>process. For example, the bill no longer includes a water rights
>provision, which avoids changing the status quo on the interrelationship
>of the Act and state water laws, thereby minimizing conflicts between
>the Act and water projects in the West. The recovery section has been
>greatly improved by requiring that recovery goals be based solely on
>sound science. Then, within this biological context, social and economic
>factors will be considered as we work together to find ways to
>expeditiously achieve the species' recovery goal. Retaining the current
>emergency listing standard is appropriate since this is an extremely
>important tool in the very few crisis situations where we may need it.
>After thorough examination of the Section 9 take standard by your
>Committee, we are pleased to see that the bill has reaffirmed the
>current law. Your bill does not waive other environmental statutes and we
>commend you for this decision. Finally, the bill contains no
>compensation provision or other problematic property rights language; we
>would strongly object to such provisions.
>
>These are all very positive parts of a bill that maintains and actually
>improves the essential protections and integrity of the Act while also
>seeking to make the Act work better for the affected public and
>landowners. I would now like to discuss the Administration's
>recommendations on the bill, which we believe are important to our
>ability to implement a comprehensive ESA.
>
>Securing adequate funding to support this legislation will be the
>greatest challenge facing all of us. This legislation calls for an
>authorization level that is more than double the current resource
>agencies' ESA budgets. Even if this level of increase is realized in
>appropriations, we remain concerned that the cost and complexity of some
>of the changes, particularly process changes, may actually exceed the
>authorized levels. Without adequate appropriations, we will face
>significant litigation backlogs, and some species' recovery may be
>stalled. In addition, response and technical assistance to landowners,
>applicants, and federal action agencies will be delayed. Also, a number
>of agencies will require additional funds to adequately implement this
>bill because of increased responsibilities for land management agencies
>such as the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the Fish
>and Wildlife Service. In short, absent adequate funding or a reduction
>in the complexity of some of the processes, we can not support this bill.
>
>The greatest strength of this bill is its increased emphasis on
>recovery, but this comes with additional requirements that will be
>expensive to implement and new deadlines that may be difficult to meet
>even with adequate funding. The bill should be amended directing the
>Secretary to develop and implement a biologically based recovery
>planning priority system using the biological priorities as set forth in
>S. 1180 as a template for this system. Also, the Administration would
>like to see the recovery process streamlined as explained below.
>
>One method for streamlining the bill's process requirements is to
>consolidate the designation of critical habitat with the development of
>recovery plans. Although the bill allows for the regulatory designation
>of critical habitat at the time of recovery rather than listing, a
>significant improvement, we remain concerned that the cost and
>administrative burden of designating critical habitat by regulation in
>this bill is not warranted. Habitat is "the key" for all species and as
>such needs to be thoroughly addressed in all recovery plans. Continuing
>to carry out a regulatory critical habitat designation process
>simultaneously with the new recovery plan development process is
>duplicative and escalates costs for little resource or stakeholder
>benefit. Both processes include consideration of economic costs and
>provide for public participation. The two should be integrated into one
>process. We will be glad to suggest the necessary technical changes that
>would better incorporate this process into recovery planning and save
>time and money, while ensuring protection of species and habitat.
>
>The bill provides that a Federal agency can go forward with an action if
>the agency makes a determination that the action is not likely to
>adversely affect the species and the resource agencies do not object.
>The bill provides an increased role for Federal agencies in species
>conservation by requiring inventories of species present on federally
>managed lands, recovery implementation agreements, and increased
>responsibility for their decisions under Section 7. We believe we can
>work with other agencies to make the new trigger and the plan
>consultations work well for the involved agencies, applicants and the
>resource. However, an endorsement of our recent practice of working
>together with other federal agencies early in the consultation process in
>a pro-active manner that is both more efficient and better for species
>conservation needs should be codified. Even where early coordination
>occurs, the bill could be read to require that action agencies wait an
>additional 60 days for resource agencies to object to their findings.
>Language that stresses the importance of early proactive coordination
>and cooperation among federal agencies and the ability of agencies to
>still request and receive expedite concurrence letters would alleviate
>these concerns. Finally, I would like to urge that the spirit of
>cooperative discussion that produced this bill extend to the development
>of the Committee report, so that our mutual understandings of these
>complex issues are strengthened, not eroded, as the bill proceeds
>through the legislative process. I am very encouraged that the Senate is
>moving forward to reauthorize the ESA. We in the Administration stand
>ready to continue to assist in any way possible in seeing the process
>through to completion. We are optimistic that we can reach closure on
>these issues before final consideration of this bill in the Senate so
>that the Administration can support its enactment. Together, we can make
>the Act work even better for species and people and get on with
>conserving our resources for future generations.
>
>====================================================================
>News releases are also available on the World Wide Web at
>http://www.fws.gov/~r9extaff/pubaff.html They can be reviewed in
>chronological order or searched by keyword.
>Questions concerning a particular news release or item of information
>should be directed to the person listed as the contact. General comments
>or observations concerning the content of the information should be
>directed to Craig Rieben (craig_rieben at mail.fws.gov) in the Office of
>Public Affairs.
>
>============================================================
>To unsubscribe from the fws-news listserver, send e-mail to
>majordomo at www.fws.gov with "unsubscribe fws-news" (and omit the "quotes")
>in the **body** of the message. You should not include anything on the
>Subject: line.
>For additional information about listserver commands, send a message to
>majordomo at www.fws.gov with "info fws-news" (and no "quotes") in the body
>of the message.
>
>.-
>
>
Ben & Peggi Rodgers
Aptos, CA (near Santa Cruz 122 W, 37 N)
USA
woodduck at cruzio.com
http://www2.cruzio.com/~woodduck/


"A bird does not sing because it has an answer,
It sings because it has a song"