[Senate Hearing 113-772]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-772
LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: S. 571, GREAT
LAKES WATER PROTECTION ACT; S. 1153, INVASIVE FISH AND WILDLIFE
PREVENTION ACT; S. 1175, INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITATION AND HABITAT
CONSERVATION ACT OF 2013; S. 1202, SAFE ACT; S. 1232, GREAT LAKES
ECOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC PROTECTION ACT OF 2013; H.R. 1300, TO AMEND THE
FISH AND WILDLIFE ACT OF 1956 TO REAUTHORIZE THE VOLUNTEER PROGRAMS AND
COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS FOR THE BENEFIT OF NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; S. 1381, BIG CATS AND PUBLIC SAFETY PROTECTION
ACT; S. 1650, A BILL TO AMEND THE MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT TO EXEMPT
CERTAIN ALASKA NATIVE ARTICLES FROM PROHIBITIONS AGAINST SALE OF ITEMS
CONTAINING NONEDIBLE MIGRATORY BIRD PARTS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; S.
2225, SMART WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCY ACT
OF 2014; S. 2530, A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, TO
PROHIBIT THE IMPORTATION OR EXPORTATION OF MUSSELS OF CERTAIN GENUS,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; AND S. 2560, UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE RESOURCE PROTECTION ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 16, 2014
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
98-182 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
_________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
TOM UDALL, New Mexico MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director
Zak Baig, Republican Staff Director
----------
Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland, Chairman
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
BARBARA BOXER, California (ex DAVID VITTER, Louisiana (ex
officio) officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JULY 16, 2014
OPENING STATEMENTS
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland 1
Levin, Hon. Carl, U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois,
prepared statement............................................. 2
Blumenthal, Hon. Richard, U.S. Senator from the State of
Connecticut.................................................... 4
Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten, U.S. Senator from the State of New York 5
Kirk, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois......... 6
Heller, Hon. Dean, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada......... 8
Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
Island......................................................... 10
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma,
prepared statement............................................. 123
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from the State of
California, prepared statement................................. 124
WITNESSES
Shapiro, Mike, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office
of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency................. 17
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Response to an additional question from Senator Vitter....... 27
Guertin, Steve, Deputy Director for Policy, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service............................................... 28
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Responses to additional questions from:
Senatory Cardin.......................................... 39
Senator Vitter........................................... 41
Stein, Bruce A., Ph.D., Director, Climate Change Adaptation,
National Wildlife Federation................................... 49
Prepared statement........................................... 51
Lord, Chad, Policy Director, Healing Our Waters--Great Lakes
Coalition, and Senior Director, Water Policy, National Parks
Conservation Association....................................... 61
Prepared statement........................................... 63
Wasley, Tony, Director, Nevada Department of Wildlife............ 77
Prepared statement........................................... 79
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letter from the Alliance for the Great Lakes to Senators Cardin
and Boozman.................................................... 126
Letter from the Natural Resources Defense Council to Senators
Cardin and Kirk................................................ 129
Testimony of the Alaska Federation of Natives.................... 131
Letter from the Alliance for Water Efficiency to Senator Tom
Udall.......................................................... 134
Letter from the Alliance for Water Efficiency et al. to Senator
Tom Udall...................................................... 135
Letter from the Alliance for Water Efficiency et al. to Senators
Tom Udall and Chambliss........................................ 137
Letter from Plumbing Manufacturers International to Senator Tom
Udall.......................................................... 139
Letter from the Union of Concerned Scientists to Senator Tom
Udall.......................................................... 141
Letter from the National Environmental Coalition on Invasive
Species to Senator Heller...................................... 143
Letter from the Western Governors' Association to Representative
Heck........................................................... 144
Testimony of the National Wildlife Refuge Association............ 145
LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: S. 571,
GREAT LAKES WATER PROTECTION ACT; S. 1153, INVASIVE FISH AND
WILDLIFE PREVENTION ACT; S. 1175, INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITATION
AND HABITAT CONSERVATION ACT OF 2013; S. 1202, SAFE ACT; S.
1232, GREAT LAKES ECOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC PROTECTION ACT OF
2013; H.R. 1300, TO AMEND THE FISH AND WILDLIFE ACT OF 1956 TO
REAUTHORIZE THE VOLUNTEER PROGRAMS AND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS
FOR THE BENEFIT OF NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES; S. 1381, BIG CATS AND PUBLIC SAFETY PROTECTION ACT;
S. 1650, A BILL TO AMEND THE MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT TO
EXEMPT CERTAIN ALASKA NATIVE ARTICLES FROM PROHIBITIONS AGAINST
SALE OF ITEMS CONTAINING NONEDIBLE MIGRATORY BIRD PARTS, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES; S. 2225, SMART WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCY ACT OF 2014; S. 2530, A BILL TO
AMEND TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, TO PROHIBIT THE IMPORTATION
OR EXPORTATION OF MUSSELS OF CERTAIN GENUS, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES; AND S. 2560, UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
RESOURCE PROTECTION ACT
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 2014
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3 p.m. in room
406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin (chairman
of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Cardin, Boozman, Gillibrand, and
Whitehouse.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. Good afternoon, and welcome to the
Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife of the Environment and
Public Works Committee.
I thank Senator Boozman for his help in putting together
today's hearing and thank the Chair and Ranking Member for
their cooperation.
We have 11 bills that we are going to hear today that are
under the jurisdiction of our subcommittee. We will have an
opportunity for the sponsors to explain their bills and make
their statements. We then have representatives of the
Administration who are here and also outside interest groups
who are interested in some of these bills.
We welcome all of your comments. We would ask, without
objection, that your written statements will all be made a part
of the record.
Let me first state this is the way we should proceed on
legislation pending before the Congress. We should have an
opportunity for a full hearing and hope the committee can take
advantage of the information that is made available. I know in
a couple cases we have received written comments, and all that
will be extremely helpful.
I want to use my time to explain one of the 11 bills before
the committee, S. 2560, the Service Resource Protection Act
that I have sponsored at the suggestion of the agency.
Currently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not have
explicit statutory authority to seek compensation from
responsible parties that injure or destroy national wildlife
refuge system or other Service resources. This is in contrast
to the authority that the National Park Service has and
exercises under the Park System Resource Protection Act and a
similar authority to NOAA that it uses under the National
Marine Sanctuaries Act.
In other words, if someone causes harm, we can hold them
responsible up to the amount of damage they have caused and
that can be used to compensate and fix the damage that has been
caused without additional burdens to the taxpayers of this
country or the budgets of the different agencies.
The Service Resource Protection Act gives similar authority
to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in regards to damages
caused to our national wildlife refuge system. I know the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service is going to be testifying so we will
have an opportunity to get their views in that regard.
Let me also point out that we have received, I believe,
statements from two of the sponsors who will not be testifying
personally, Senator Levin in regard to the Great Lakes
Ecological and Economic Protection Act and Senator Murkowski in
regard to a bill that amends the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
[The prepared statement of Senator Murkowski was not
received at time of print. The prepared statement of Senator
Levin follows:]
Statement of Hon. Carl Levin,
U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan
Thank you, Chairman Cardin and Ranking Member Boozman, for
holding this hearing on the Great Lakes Ecological and Economic
Protection Act of 2013 (S. 1232), which would help restore and
protect the Great Lakes, the largest source of surface
freshwater on the planet. Senator Kirk and I, as co-chairs of
the Senate Great Lakes Task Force, introduced this bill to
target the most significant problems facing the Great Lakes and
ensure that we implement these projects cost effectively. I
want to thank the other eight Senators who cosponsored the
bill, in particular Senator Gillibrand, who is a member of this
subcommittee. I am also pleased that Congressman Joyce is the
sponsor of a companion measure in the House of Representatives,
which has 23 bipartisan cosponsors.
The Great Lakes are one of the world's great treasures,
providing drinking water to more than 40 million people;
supporting 1.5 million U.S. jobs and $62 billion in wages;
transporting critical supplies for manufacturing, electricity
generation and food for the world; and supporting the region's
$4.6 trillion economy.
The Great Lakes brought industrial and natural resource
development to the region which resulted in tremendous economic
development and population growth. This development, however,
also resulted in toxic substances polluting the waters and
sediments, untreated wastewater threatening public health, and
polluted runoff choking habitats and killing aquatic life.
The Great Lakes Ecological and Economic Protection Act (S.
1232), also known as GLEEPA, would tackle problems from past
pollution and protect the lakes from current and future
threats. GLEEPA would formally authorize the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative (GLRI), an inter-agency program that
President Obama launched in 2009 to implement a regional
collaboration strategy developed in 2005 by about 1,500
stakeholder participants. This collaborative process was formed
through an Executive Order by President Bush. The history of
the restoration strategy clearly shows the work of restoring
and protecting the Great Lakes is founded on a plan that
reflects a broad range of viewpoints and has strong bipartisan
support. It is critical that this collaborative strategy guide
restoration of the Great Lakes because the region encompasses
not only eight States, but also two countries. This process
will also help ensure that progress can be made over the long
term, as clean up of decades of pollution will take time.
GLEEPA would focus Federal resources on the areas of
highest priority identified in the collaborative plan, which
would be further refined as new science and information become
available. While the GLRI is broadly authorized in the Clean
Water Act, passing this legislation would help ensure the
program has clear congressional direction and goals, is results
driven and transparent, and implements the most cost effective
solutions. The bill would also formally establish the Great
Lakes Advisory Board to provide advice and recommendations
concerning restoration and protection. The board would reflect
many different viewpoints, including from local, State and
tribal governments; environmental, agricultural, and business
organizations; hunters and anglers; and academia. Finally, the
bill would formally establish a 10-member interagency task
force to coordinate restoration efforts, ensure projects are
not duplicated and that they use existing successful programs.
GLEEPA also would accelerate progress toward the goals of the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, a formal agreement between
the U.S. and Canadian governments establishing shared goals for
protecting and improving water quality of the Great Lakes.
The GLRI has achieved real progress: clean up of more than
1.3 million cubic yards of contaminated sediment; control of
the destructive sea lamprey and restoration of sturgeon, trout
and other important fish species; construction of barriers to
prevent an invasion by destructive Asian carp and planning for
additional measures to keep these fish out of the Lakes; and
prevention of precious Great Lakes water diversions through the
Great Lakes Compact. GLEEPA would help ensure that progress
continues to be made using a solid framework for achieving
measurable and outcome-based results.
The Great Lakes are precious and irreplaceable. As
temporary stewards of this invaluable resource, we must do all
we can to restore and protect the Great Lakes for the millions
of people who depend on them today and the millions more who
will in the future. Thank you for holding this hearing, and I
hope you will soon advance this bill to the full Senate.
Senator Cardin. With that, let me recognize Senator
Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this very, very important hearing as we discuss these
various bills. I agree with you totally that this is the right
way to do it, to have the witnesses so that we can discuss and
see how we can improve the ideas being brought forward.
I ask unanimous consent that my full statement be placed in
the record.
Senator Cardin. Without objection.
Senator Boozman. I am so excited about this first panel
that in the interest of time, I will do that. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Senator Boozman was not received
at time of print.]
Senator Cardin. We are very pleased to have three of our
colleagues here today, all who have brought forward legislation
we are hearing today. We will start with Senator Blumenthal,
the principal sponsor of S. 1381, the Big Cats and Public
Safety Protection Act.
Senator Blumenthal.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you very much, Senator Cardin.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee here today, I
want to thank you for the opportunity to address the
subcommittee and speak about the Big Cats and Public Safety
Protection Act and thank the co-sponsors who have introduced
this bill with me.
It is really a common sense solution to the serious dangers
associated with private ownership of wild animals such as
lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs and more.
Incredibly, even in the 21st century, even in the United
States of America, this problem is real and serious. There are
at least 10,000 big cats currently in private ownership around
the country. In fact, there are more captive tigers in the
United States than there are in the wild. Think about it: more
captive tigers in the United States than in the wild.
Some people buy them as wild animals, as cubs, thinking it
would be fun to own an exotic pet like a tiger or a lion or a
leopard but as soon as they begin to mature, private owners
quickly find themselves in over their heads, literally and
figuratively, and frequently subject these animals to utterly
inhumane living conditions.
Other people purchase big cats to use in traveling roadside
zoos which charge fees to allow unwitting members of the public
to take pictures with the animals, they are literally side by
side with the animals, dangerously so. The exhibitors of these
roadside zoos often use abusive training techniques in an
attempt to prevent the animals from attacking any of the
customers.
No matter what the setting, private ownership of big cats
poses gravely serious safety threats for anyone who happens to
live in the surrounding community.
Over the last two decades, captive big cats have killed 24
people in the United States, 24 people killed by these big cats
including 5 children. In addition, these cats have mauled and
injured over 200 people.
In short, private ownership and breeding of big cats has
been a very, very serious problem for law enforcement officers
and first responders. Brave men and women who go to the scene
of a big cat incident have to put their lives on the line. They
are not always trained to deal with them and they often lack
the equipment necessary to properly deal with them.
In fact, I have talked to members of the firefighting
community as well as the law enforcement community who
frequently go to homes that may be on fire or dealing with the
threat of fire and find these animals there without even
knowing what they are going to encounter.
Conservation experts overwhelmingly agree that breeding and
possessing an animal outside of its natural environment is not
an example of conservation. These wild animals are just what
are called, wild. They are wild and people should respect the
expertise that is required to deal with them and they should
not be allowed to own them.
My legislation would prohibit private possession and
breeding of big cats, but it is all too common sense which
requires this bill and also requires reasonable exceptions for
properly accredited zoos, State colleges and universities and
traveling circuses that do not allow public handling of these
wild animals.
The bill would also allow those who currently own big cats
to keep them as long as they register the animals with the
United States Department of Agriculture. In other words, there
is a kind of grandfather clause.
I urge the members of this subcommittee to support this
legislation so that we can put an end to inhumane, dangerous
and wasteful private ownership of big cats.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cardin. Thank you very much,
I am going to recognize Senator Gillibrand. I apologize for
overlooking you for your opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Senator Gillibrand. I was grateful to hear Senator
Blumenthal's very interesting legislation that I will support.
Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Boozman, thank you for
holding this hearing and for including several pieces of
legislation that are vital not just to New York but all across
our country.
I am particularly pleased that our subcommittee was able to
include S. 1153, the Invasive Fish and Wildlife Prevention Act,
on the list of legislation to be discussed today. I have worked
closely on this legislation with Congresswoman Louise Slaughter
in response to the real and severe threats that my State of New
York faces with regard to invasive species as well as Senator
Nelson who knows all too well the harm that invasives can cause
through Florida's recent experiences battling the Burmese
python in the Everglades.
Whether it is the Asian clam in Lake George, zebra mussels
in the Finger Lakes or the imminent danger of Asian carp in the
Great Lakes, New York's water bodies are affected by aquatic
invasive species that threaten our regional economies, disrupt
the balance of our ecosystems and cost our local communities
scarce resources to control their spread.
Across the United States, invasive species cost more than
$120 billion each year and result in more than $13 billion in
damage to agriculture annually. Those numbers will only
continue to grow if additional species that could cause harm
are allowed to be imported into the United States.
Currently, 236 species of animals are listed as injurious
under the Lacey Act, including zebra mussels. However, despite
the fact that since 2010, the Asian clam has caused harm to
Lake George, that species is not listed. It makes no sense, and
we have to improve the Federal Government's ability to quickly
respond to these threats.
Once a species is listed as injurious, it cannot be
imported into the United States. However, the current process
can take 4 years to complete, giving an invasive species more
time to establish itself and damage our ecosystems.
To fix this problem, I have introduced the Invasive Fish
and Wildlife Prevention Act to strengthen the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's ability to proactively address the threat of
invasive species by requiring an analysis to determine whether
any non-native animal species have the potential to become
invasive and harmful to the U.S. before they can be imported or
enter interstate commerce.
Specifically, the bill would establish an injurious species
listing process based on the clear risk assessment and risk
determination process. It would also allow the Fish and
Wildlife Service to take emergency actions to ban non-native
wildlife like the Asian clam and others that pose an imminent
threat to our waterways and other ecosystems.
I believe this is a common sense approach to prevent the
further spread of invasive species and look forward to
continuing to work with my colleagues in the Senate to advance
the legislation.
I would also like to briefly speak on another piece of
legislation I have co-sponsored, the Great Lakes Ecological and
Economic Protection Action of 2014. As the only Senator on the
EPW who represents a Great Lakes State, I know firsthand how
important the Great Lakes restoration initiative has been to my
State and the entire region.
The Great Lakes face a number of challenges from Asian carp
to blue-green algae. Ensuring that we have a long term Federal
commitment to restoring and protecting the environmental
quality of the Great Lakes is critical to regional economies
that rely on the lakes for fishing, tourism and other economic
activity.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the testimony of
our other witnesses today.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Senator Kirk. I believe you are here in regard to S. 571.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK KIRK,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Senator Kirk. S. 571, that would propose a total ban on
sewage dumping in the Great Lakes is already backed by
Stabenow, Levin, Durbin and Kirk.
This chart shows the dirty dozen dumpers in the Great Lakes
area. Let me point to some of the details. The worse dumper in
the Great Lakes area is the city of Detroit which far eclipses
most of the other cities.
Just to get further support from my colleagues for Buffalo,
this legislation also has a fining mechanism that would refund
to the publicly owned sewage treatment systems so that they can
clean up their act, a virtual cycle of stopping.
The reason why Senators from various States should care
about this is the Great Lakes are the source of 95 percent of
the fresh water in the United States, and 30 million Americans
will pull their drinking water from the Great Lakes, including
a few Canucks in Canada. That is why I think we should treat
this ecosystem with the reverence that it should enjoy and make
sure we ban sewage dumping in the Great Lakes.
I would say it is really good bipartisan legislation which
we have put together with several members of the current Senate
onboard. I introduced this in the House when I was a House
member. We had the current Mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, when
he was a Congressman, onboard.
With that, I would conclude my remarks and urge your
support to rapidly pass this legislation out of the
subcommittee to make sure we protect this central ecosystem of
the United States.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Kirk follows:]
Statement of Hon. Mark Kirk,
U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois
Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Boozman, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to testify this
afternoon on critical legislation that would improve water
quality and protect the Great Lakes. As the largest source of
surface fresh water in the world, the Great Lakes provide food,
recreation, and drinking water for more than 30 million
Americans. Yet year after year, our most precious natural
resource continues to be harmed by billions of gallons of
sewage that are discharged into the lakes, degrading water
quality, threatening public health and safety, and causing
beach closures across the Great Lakes.
Home to more than 200 globally unique species of plants and
animals, the Great Lakes are an invaluable ecological treasure
that account for 84 percent of the surface fresh water in North
America. With more than 10,000 miles of coastline, the Great
Lakes offer unmatched recreational and tourism opportunities,
attracting businesses and families looking to relocate and
drawing millions of tourists to their shores every year. The
Great Lakes support an estimated 1.5 million American jobs,
generate $62 billion in annual wages and transport
approximately 145 million tons of commodities across the
system's channels.
Yet despite their great size and numerous benefits, the
lakes are under siege. More than 24 billion gallons of
untreated waste and stormwater are diverted into the Great
Lakes each year, contaminating the water supply with harmful
toxins and pathogens, like E. coli. While cities across the
Great Lakes have taken strides to reduce the amount of sewage
discharged into the lakes and their tributaries, not enough is
being done to put an end to this harmful practice. For example,
in 2011, Detroit, Michigan, dumped 6.9 billion gallons of
untreated and partially treated sewage into the lakes, and Fort
Wayne, Indiana, dumped another 7.5 billion gallons of combined
sewage into the tributaries of Lake Erie. Closer to my home in
Illinois, 2.3 billion gallons were discharged into Lake
Michigan from the Chicagoland area.
Sewage pollution is devastating to the region's tourism
sector. It contributes to hundreds of beach closures and
advisories across the Great Lakes annually and negatively
impacts the cash strapped budgets of our local communities.
According to the Illinois Department of Public Health, the
number of beach advisories and closings on the Lake Michigan
shoreline in Illinois alone has remained between 300-600 a year
over the last 5 years. In addition to the negative impacts on
the environment and public health, a University of Chicago
study showed swim bans at Chicago's beaches due to E. coli
levels cost the local economy $2.4 million in lost revenue
every year. This is unacceptable.
The path forward is clear. To protect the source of
drinking water for millions of Americans and the economic
vitality of the region, we must work together to put an end to
the billions of gallons of municipal sewage that are discharged
into our lakes. For these reasons, I urge this committee to
consider S. 571, The Great Lakes Water Protection Act,
bipartisan legislation which I introduced with Senator Richard
Durbin (D-IL). This legislation would set a date certain to end
sewage dumping in the Great Lakes and would increase the fines
for dumping to $100,000 per violation, per day, which are
currently capped at $37,500. S. 571 gives municipalities 20
years to make the necessary upgrades to their sewer systems and
creates a level playing field for all communities throughout
the Great Lakes region. The fines collected would be funneled
into a new Great Lakes clean up fund within the Clean Water
State Revolving Fund to generate financial resources for the
Great Lakes States to improve wastewater treatment options,
habitat protection and wastewater treatment systems.
This bill also enhances transparency and public awareness
requirements surrounding overflow events, requiring rapid
public notification about when an overflow event occurs, the
total volume that was released, and where it took place. This
gives individuals, businesses, and local municipal planners the
tools they need to protect public health and ensure that beach
closures and advisories reflect the most accurate and up-to-
date information.
I am committed to helping improve water quality, wastewater
infrastructure, and ensuring our existing Federal policies
effectively prevent the negative impacts of sewage pollution on
the Great Lakes ecosystem. I appreciate the committee's
attention to this issue, and I hope my colleagues will support
me in ensuring this important resource becomes free from the
threat of sewage pollution and is preserved for future
generations.
Senator Cardin. Thank you very much, Senator Kirk.
Senator Heller on S. 2530.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DEAN HELLER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Senator Heller. Thank you, Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member
Boozman and the rest of the committee. Thank you very much for
having this hearing today and allowing me to testify on this
particular bill, the Protecting Lakes Against Quaggas Act. I
was looking for a sexier name for this but I couldn't come up
with one so we will stick with the Protecting Lakes Against
Quaggas Act.
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss Nevada's quagga
mussel efforts and my bill which can be an important part of a
nationwide solution.
Quagga mussels are freshwater mollusks with razor sharp
shells. Each mussel is usually no bigger than a man's
thumbnail, but they wreak havoc on water bodies and infiltrate
by multiplying at an alarming rate clogging water pipelines,
powerplant cooling systems, marine equipment, damaging boats,
water infrastructure and native wildlife.
They were first introduced to the Great Lakes in the mid-
1980s and have since spread through a boat to Lake Mead in
southern Nevada, a heavily recreated reservoir on the Nevada-
Arizona border that also provides over 90 percent of the
southern Nevada water supply.
Until January 2007, when they first turned up at Lake Mead,
quaggas had never been found west of the Mississippi River.
Since, they have been detected at Lahontan Reservoir, Rye Patch
Reservoir, Lake Tahoe and many other western lakes and
reservoirs.
The only way for these mussels to spread from lake to lake
is by hitchhiking on recreational boats. Preventing their
spread sounds easy. All it takes are boat inspections to make
sure they are not attached to boat holds or hidden in the bilge
water.
That work is difficult and expensive. Quagga and zebra
mussels have cost more in prevention and control than any other
aquatic species to invade the United States, costing an
estimated $5 billion in prevention and control efforts since
1987. The Bureau of Reclamation alone spends $1 million
annually on quagga mussel control just at Hoover Dam.
A lot of great work is currently being done on the ground
to prevent the spread of quagga but the problem is not going
away. Just last week, a Lake Tahoe watercraft inspector
inspected a boat with quagga mussels and had an unidentified
snail species hidden in the anchor locker.
The boat, coming from Lake Mead, was inspected at the
Spooner Summit Inspection Station on Highway 50 in Nevada,
fully decontaminated and ultimately cleared to launch on Lake
Tahoe.
Since the start of the summer boating season May 2014,
inspectors have intercepted 24 boats containing invasive
species bound for the waters of Lake Tahoe. Eight of these
boats contained invasive mussels, and another four boats were
carrying several different types of snail species.
Over the 4th of July holiday, more than 725 boats were
screened for invasive species at four inspection stations
surrounding the lake, a 17 percent increase from 2013.
The Protecting Lakes Against Quaggas Act is a
straightforward, common sense proposal that will assist ongoing
efforts to stop the spread of these destructive invasive
species. It adds the quagga mussel to the National List of
Invasive Species covered under the Lacey Act. Currently the
zebra mussel is listed, but the quagga is not.
A listing will allow for increased inspection of boats
crossing State lines and entering Federal lands to further
prevent quagga hitchhiking.
My bill garners support from a diverse range of
stakeholders including, but not limited to, the Western
Governors Association, the Colorado River Energy Distributors
Association, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, National Parks
Conservation Association and the National Wildlife Federation.
Additionally, friend and fellow Nevadan, Dr. Joe Heck
introduced similar legislation last year in the House that has
garnered 22 Republican and Democrat co-sponsors across the
political spectrum, many from the affected States.
Before I conclude, I would like to thank the Nevada
Department of Wildlife Director, Tony Wasley, for being here
today. Tony is a qualified leader with a distinguished 17-year
NDW career.
He was appointed by Governor Brian Sandoval last April.
Since, he has done a tremendous job leading our State's efforts
to eliminate aquatic invasive species as well as managing
Nevada's statewide game and conservation projects for species
such as sage grouse, mule deer, elk and bighorn sheep.
Nevada is fortunate to have Tony's leadership at NDW, and I
am greatly appreciative of his coming to DC to testify in
support of this bill. He and I know firsthand that providing
our local authorities more tools to prevent aquatic travel will
help stop the spread of these pests and potentially save
billions of dollars in future maintenance costs.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before the
subcommittee today on this important Nevada priority.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cardin. Thank you. I thank all of our colleagues
for being here today.
Senator Kirk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry I didn't bring
any charts.
Senator Cardin. You did just fine.
You all are excused to carry on your business.
Let me recognize Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. With all those wild cats, it would have
been quite a good chart.
Senator Kirk. I thought about it.
Senator Cardin. Senator Whitehouse will discuss S. 1202.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Whitehouse. I would be delighted.
The acronym is the SAFE Act, which stands for Safeguarding
America's Future and the Environment. This was a piece of
legislation developed in an east-west-coastal-mountain
coalition with Senator Max Baucus when he was here.
As we prepared it, we asked the Government Accountability
Office for a report on the adaptation efforts by the Federal
Government within our natural resource agencies. The report was
pretty stark and explained the vulnerability of some of these
vital natural resources from rising temperatures from worsening
drought, wildfire, rising sea levels, shrinking snow coverage
and flow.
GAO previously noted that as the manager of vast lands and
natural resources, the Federal Government has real fiscal risk
from climate change through these properties and manages nearly
30 percent of land in the United States, in addition to the
marine resources that run 200 miles from our shore.
The GAO report found that the status quo management and
planning will not be good enough: ``Natural resource management
has historically been based on the idea of maintaining current
environmental conditions or restoring species and habitats to
some desired former condition.''
As the climate continues to change, this approach will
become increasingly more difficult, if not impossible, to
maintain. The SAFE Act requires implementation of the National
Fish, Wildlife and Plants Adaptation Strategy and asks that the
Federal national resource agencies, NOAA, the National Park
Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, BLM, to complete
coordinated climate change adaptation plans.
This is something the Administration is already moving
forward on, so the SAFE Act would codify these efforts and also
support smart actions taking place at the local level.
We had an Oversight Subcommittee hearing, Mr. Chairman, on
natural resource adaptation in February. One of the witnesses
was Rhode Island Commercial Fisherman's Association President
Chris Brown, who testified about the toll that climate change
is already taking on his industry: ``I fish on a much different
ocean today than when I first started fishing with my
grandfather as a boy in the mid-1960s. Regularly caught now in
Rhode Island are the species of croaker, grouper, cobia, drum
and tarpon. My grandfather never saw a single one of these in
his entire life as a fisherman.''
The wild-caught fisheries of the northeast may ultimately
prove to be the coal miner's canary for this Nation as we
grapple with the issue of climate change. A reconsideration of
strategy is called for given the enormous chasm between what we
have endured and what we have gained.
Our oceans remain ground zero for damage from carbon
pollution. They are warming. That is easily measurable with
things like thermometers, and you don't have to be a
theoretician to understand that. They are rising, also easily
measurable at tide gauges with something that is not much more
complicated than a yardstick, not much room for dissent about
that, I would think.
They are becoming more acidic, something that children
measure in their aquariums. It is not that complicated. Without
a doubt, the changes we are seeing put the jobs and livelihoods
of our fishing community at risk.
Those same changes we also see affecting forest health,
wildlife habitat and species migration which in turn affects
the outdoor recreation and hunting industries which account for
nearly $650 billion in consumer spending each year.
To protect these vital natural resources and help them
adapt in the face of climate change, I would hope we can move
this bill forward. It would be a step toward protecting our
economy and our outdoors way of life.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Whitehouse follows:]
Statement of Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse,
U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island
Thank you, Chairman Cardin, for holding this legislative
hearing to discuss a number of bills on which the committee may
have the opportunity to vote in the weeks and months ahead.
One of the bills on the agenda today is S. 1202, the
Safeguarding America's Future and the Environment Act--the SAFE
Act, for short. This bill provides local communities with
better tools to help our natural resources adapt to climate
change. These resources help keep our air and water clean,
sustain our economy, and provide a deep-seated sense of place.
I introduced this bill with then-Senator and now-Ambassador
Max Baucus from Montana, with whom I was proud to work on this
issue. He and I also requested a GAO report on adaptation
efforts at our natural resource management agencies. The report
explains just how vulnerable America's natural resources are to
the changes we're seeing in the Earth's climate, including
rising temperatures, worsening drought and wildfire, rising sea
levels, and shrinking snow cover.
GAO previously noted that as the manager of vast lands and
natural resources, the Federal Government is at great fiscal
risk from climate change. The Federal Government manages nearly
30 percent of land in the United States as well as marine
resources, like fisheries, in our exclusive economic zone that
extends 200 miles from our shore.
The GAO report found that status quo management and
planning will not be good enough: it says, ``natural resource
management has historically been based on the idea of
maintaining current environmental conditions or restoring
species and habitats to some desired former condition. As the
climate continues to change, this approach . . . will become
increasingly more difficult if not impossible to maintain.''
So, the SAFE Act requires implementation of the National
Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Adaptation strategy and asks Federal
natural resource agencies--such as the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Park Service, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management--to
complete coordinated climate change adaptation plans.
The Administration is already moving forward on this front.
The President's Climate Action Plan includes sensible steps to
prepare us for the effects of climate change. An Executive
Order issued in November further focused the Administration's
adaptation strategy. The SAFE Act would codify these efforts
and support smart actions at the local level.
At an Oversight Subcommittee hearing I chaired on natural
resource adaptation in February, witnesses discussed the need
for strategic adaptation planning in the face of climate
change. Rhode Island Commercial Fishermen's Association
President Chris Brown testified about the toll climate change
is already taking on his industry. He put it like this: ``I
fish on a much different ocean today than when I first started
fishing with my grandfather as a boy in the mid-1960s . . .
Regularly caught now in Rhode Island are the species of
croaker, grouper, cobia, drum, and tarpon. My grandfather never
saw a single one of these in his entire life as a fisherman.''
He continued: ``The wild caught fisheries of the Northeast
may ultimately prove to be the `coal miner's canary' for this
Nation as we grapple with the issue of climate change. A
reconsideration of strategy is called for given the enormous
chasm between what we have endured and what we have gained.''
Our oceans are ground zero for damage from carbon
pollution. They are warming, they are rising, and they are
becoming more acidic. These are measurements, not theories or
projections. Without a doubt, these drastic changes put the
jobs and livelihoods of fishermen at risk.
Likewise, the changes we are seeing in forest health,
wildlife habitat, and species migration patterns affect the
outdoor recreation and hunting industries, which account for
nearly $650 billion in consumer spending each year.
America's natural resources--our rivers and bays, our
forests and marshes, our fish and animals--are our birthright
and our legacy. To protect them and help them adapt in the face
of climate change is to protect our economy and way of life. I
appreciate the committee's consideration of this important
legislation.
Thank you.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. We
appreciate your leadership on this issue. You have been a
strong leader in the areas of adaptation. We appreciate this
legislation.
Senator Whitehouse. If I may ask unanimous consent to have
a letter from the groups that support this legislation added to
the record.
I would point out that Senator Kirk's display of Lake Erie
omitted one salient fact which was the Battle of Lake Erie was
won by a Rhode Islander, Oliver Hazzard Perry, in the War of
1812.
Senator Kirk. I am sure it was an oversight.
Senator Cardin. Without objection, the statements will be
made a part of the record but not the correction of the record.
We need Senator Kirk here in order to approve that.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cardin. We will now go to our panel. Mike Shapiro
is the Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office
of Water at the Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Shapiro
has been at the EPA since 1980 working and surviving through
Democrat and Republican administrations. He has served as
Deputy Assistant Administrator since 2002.
Steve Guertin is the Policy Director of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Steve is a long-time public servant with the
Service, playing key leadership roles in the Service's efforts
to help fish, wildlife and plants adapt to the effects of
landscape scale challenges, including climate change, energy
development, water scarcity, fire and invasive species.
Welcome to both of you. As is the custom of our committee,
your full statements, without objection, will be made a part of
the record. You may proceed as you wish, starting with Mr.
Shapiro.
STATEMENT OF MIKE SHAPIRO, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Mr. Shapiro. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Chairman
Cardin, Ranking Member Boozman and members of the subcommittee.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss EPA's work to
protect our Nation's waters and several pieces of proposed
legislation that would impact our agency's programs.
The Administration has not taken a position on these pieces
of legislation, but I am pleased to briefly describe EPA's
current work relevant to the issues that four of these bills
would address. I have provided additional detail in my written
testimony.
Addressing the Great Lakes first, it is tempting to think
that protecting and restoring the Great Lakes is a regional
issue. It is anything but that. With some 95 percent of the
Nation's and 20 percent of the Earth's fresh water, protecting
and restoring the Great Lakes is a national and even an
international imperative.
The EPA manages the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force of
11 Federal departments per Presidential Executive Order.
Chaired by EPA Administrator McCarthy, the task force
coordinates the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, GLRI.
In its most recent report to the President and Congress,
the GLRI is meeting or exceeding most of its annual measures of
progress for Great Lakes restoration. EPA strongly supports the
goals of S. 1232, the Great Lakes Ecological and Economic
Protection Act which would specifically authorize GLRI.
We also agree with the purpose of S. 571, the Great Lakes
Water Protection Act, but would be interested to work with
committee staff on technical issues as they move forward with
this bill.
Second, dealing with water and energy efficiency, too often
we take for granted a system that provides clean and safe water
from the drinking water that automatically appears when we turn
on our taps or take a shower to the water found in our local
watersheds where we live, work and play.
Water is not a limitless resource. As we all know, many
communities across the Nation are facing difficult challenges
in meeting their water resource needs. The EPA is working to
raise awareness and foster the understanding that water is a
valuable resource that should be used wisely.
For example, in 2006, we launched the Water Sense Program,
an innovative partnership that helps American consumers,
businesses and governments make smart water choices by looking
for the water sense label. Through 2013, we estimate the
program has saved more than 757 billion gallons of water, an
amount equal to the water needed to supply all the homes in the
United States for 26 days.
S. 2225 would create a Smart Water Resource Management
Pilot Program managed by the Department of Energy. This program
would award grants for innovative solutions to increase water
and energy efficiency.
The EPA generally supports further efforts to promote
energy and water efficiency and we have collaborated with the
Department of Energy in examining this issue. We would defer to
DOE on the specifics of the legislation.
Third is climate adaptation and water. Water resources are
important to both society and ecosystems. We depend on a
reliable, clean supply of drinking water to sustain our health.
We also need water for agriculture, navigation, recreation and
manufacturing.
A changing climate may result in water shortages in some
areas and increased runoff, flooding or sea level rises, as
Senator Whitehouse described, and other areas.
The EPA recently released a policy statement on climate
change adaptation and each of the major EPA programs and
regional offices have developed more detailed climate change
adaptation implementation plans. In 2012, the EPA's National
Water Program developed a climate change strategy to guide our
ongoing work in coordination with our State, tribal and local
partners.
S. 1202 would create an Interagency Natural Resources
Climate Change Adaptation Panel which would include the EPA
Administrator to help coordinate development and implementation
of the National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation
Strategy.
If this bill were enacted, the EPA would continue its work
with other Federal agencies on the strategy's implementation.
We would look forward to doing so.
Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss the EPA's
work in these areas and the potential impacts of the
legislation you are considering today. I look forward to
answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shapiro follows:]
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Shapiro.
Mr. Guertin.
STATEMENT OF STEVE GUERTIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR POLICY, U.S.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Mr. Guertin. Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Boozman and
members of the subcommittee, I am Steve Guertin, Deputy
Director for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Thank you for
the opportunity to testify on bills that address a range of
service responsibilities to conserve and protect America's fish
and wildlife for the benefit of our citizens.
The hearing today comes at a time when the Nation's living
resources are impacted by forces acting upon larger landscapes
and ecosystems such as habit fragmentation or loss due to land
use changes, invasive species, fish and wildlife disease,
contamination, wildfires, floods and drought, all exacerbated
by climate change.
Mr. Chairman, the Service greatly appreciates your
leadership on the United States Fish and Wildlife Resource
Protection Act. We strongly support this legislation which
mirrors the Administration's proposed draft bill.
When national wildlife refuge lands and national fish
hatcheries are damaged or injured, the taxpayer bears the cost
of restoration. We currently do not have statutory authority to
seek compensation from responsible parties who injure or
destroy Service resources and we are unable to then apply
compensation to directly address those damages.
Therefore, the cost of restoration either comes from
appropriated dollars or is added to the operations and
maintenance project list to be addressed when funds are
available down the road.
The Resource and Protection Act provides a much needed
remedy to this situation. It would authorize the Service to
seek compensation from responsible parties that injure or
destroy national wildlife refuge system or other Service
resources. This legislation is one of the Service's top
legislative priorities and we look forward to working with you,
Mr. Chairman, and the subcommittee to enact this bill.
Senator Whitehouse, the Service applauds your efforts in
introducing the SAFE Act. We are very supportive of the need
for and intent of this legislation and greatly appreciate the
subcommittee's continued work to highlight the impacts of
climate change on natural resources and the need for adaptation
measures.
We also recognize Senator Gillibrand's efforts, and we
support the purpose of the Invasive Fish and Wildlife
Protection Act. Adverse impacts from invasive species are among
the most significant challenges facing the conservation of
native fish and wildlife. Preventing the introduction and
spread of these invasive species is the most cost effective
approach to eliminating or reducing these threats.
Our written testimony provides additional information on
these and other bills you are considering today. Many of the
bills that are the subject of the hearing today are important
steps in natural resource conservation.
In addition to these efforts already underway, the Fish and
Wildlife Service believes there is much work to be accomplished
on the legislative front in the conservation of our Nation's
fish and wildlife.
Among the Service's other top priorities are the
Administration's proposal for full and permanent funding of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund, the authority to increase the
price of the Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation
Stamp, known as the Duck Stamp, and reauthorization of the
North American Wetlands Conservation Act to leverage funds for
projects that conserve and protect water fowl habitat.
These legislative actions are critically important to
conserving, protecting and restoring habitat for trust species.
These actions would also support the U.S. economy because of
Nation's natural resources are among our most valuable economic
assets.
We are happy to answer any questions you have today and
look forward to working with the subcommittee on these bills.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Guertin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cardin. Let me thank both of you for your service.
Mr. Guertin, let me start in regard to the legislation I
have authored. I fully recognize the need for you to have the
authority to go after those who have damaged our refuges and to
be able to get the compensation you need in order to restore
and repair what has been done.
We do allow legitimate use of our refuges for hunting and
recreation and so forth, and there is at least some concern
that this authority could be used in a way that would be
intimidating to lawful users of the services.
Can you give us some assurance as to how this authority
would be screened to make sure it is only used where there is
culpable activity that would warrant such action?
Mr. Guertin. We can fully assure you that if enacted, we
would only use this legislation to seek restitution from
responsible parties who injured natural resources. There is no
intention to use this to do anything to detract or take away
the right of Americans to hunt and fish on open national
wildlife refuges and otherwise enjoy public access to these
lands.
Senator Cardin. Thank you for that.
Let me address invasive species for one moment because
there are several bills that deal with that. Senator
Gillibrand's proposal that would set up a reviewing process
where you could deal with changing what is permitted to be
imported into the United States, do you have comments in regard
to that specific approach in regard to adding additional
species that could be subject to import restrictions?
Mr. Guertin. We are supportive of the overall policy intent
of the Senator's proposed legislation. We think that the idea
of putting in place some risk screening concept or methodology
to identify in Tier Category 1 and 2 threats to the U.S. would
be critically important to an overall strategy.
We are very interested right now in focusing our resources
on further species coming to the North American continent and
then our ongoing efforts to contain species once they do come
into the North American continent.
We are very interested in partnering with the Senator, her
staff and your staff, Mr. Chairman, on some program
implementation aspects of the bill which we think would make it
easier for the Service and the State Fish and Wildlife agencies
to implement.
That would include stepping down some of the implementation
ideas as well as looking at some of the exceptions that might
be envisioned in the current version of the legislation.
Senator Cardin. It would be helpful if you could get
specific comments to us as soon as possible as far as
legislative changes because I cannot speak for the Chairman of
the committee, but I know the calendar is moving. There might
be efforts made to move legislation as quickly as possible.
Any specific comments you have about language, it would
certainly be helpful to get it to the committee and to Senator
Gillibrand obviously.
Senator Blumenthal's proposal regarding the big cats, I
didn't hear any specific reference to that in your
presentation. Do you have comments regarding that specific
bill?
Mr. Guertin. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We support the overall
intent of the legislation which would amend the Lacey Act by
clarifying provisions of the underlying Captive Wildlife Safety
Act which would prohibit individuals from breeding and
possessing prohibited wildlife species.
This would address the larger impact to public health and
safety and we support the idea of grandfathering in those who
already possess these animals.
We would like to work with the Senator and the committee
leadership on some of the exemptions that we think are applied
a little too broadly. Certainly main accredited institutions,
zoos, universities and other programs would be fine under the
language but we would like to take a critical look at some of
the potential exemptions that might fall under that.
At the same time, we would like to work on other program
implementation issues but we would be glad to set up a follow
on staff level meeting to work through these kinds of program
implementation issues, not policy level issues.
Senator Cardin. Senator Heller's proposal dealing with the
quagga mussel, do you have a view on that?
Mr. Guertin. Senator, we do not oppose listing the quagga
mussel as injurious under the Lacey Act. We do have some
concerns about the vision in there which would exempt a lot of
publicly managed waterways. As currently worded, we believe
that might be too big of a blanket exemption.
We know that the States are really leading the charge on
combating quagga mussels and other invasive species. We
recognize concerns from public water managers and others, but
we think we need to sit down with folks to try and hammer out
some way to address that.
Because of that, we cannot currently support the
legislation because it includes that exemption.
Senator Cardin. The exemption is too broad in that bill?
Mr. Guertin. Yes, sir.
Senator Cardin. You have some concerns with Senator
Blumenthal's bill, that the exemption may be too broad also,
did I hear you correctly, some of the language in the Big Cats
bill?
Mr. Guertin. Yes, sir.
Senator Cardin. You will try to get information and work
with the sponsors on both of those bills? It would be helpful
to us.
In one example, we have legislation that would ease the
restrictions related to Alaskan Native articles currently
prohibited from sale, migratory bird parts. Do you have any
advice to the committee on that?
Mr. Guertin. Mr. Chairman, we are talking about the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act which ratifies four international
treaties that guide step-down provisions within each of the
host countries to manage migratory birds.
In looking at the language as written in the current bill,
we believe there are some potential violations of the larger
policy goals of those four international treaties and would
like to take a look at that.
We also think a way to get after this issue exists. That is
using the ongoing leadership and work of the Alaska Migratory
Bird Co-management Council which comprises representatives of
the State of Alaska, Alaska Natives, Native corporations, as
well as the Fish and Wildlife Service who are currently
evaluating what kind of flexibility there might be, if any,
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to allow Native American
use in Alaska of some of these bird species.
An interesting footnote to all of this is the only time the
larger international treaties have been amended was with Canada
and even then did not address the subsistence use of bird parts
and things like that.
We would like to sit down with the bill sponsors to look at
that but urge the committee to allow the ongoing work of the
commission in Alaska to potentially find a way forward on that
situation as well.
Senator Cardin. Thank you for your comments.
Mr. Shapiro, in regard to Senator Kirk's bill, you
indicated you had some technical issues with the way that bill
was drafted. Can you get those comments to us as quickly as
possible?
Mr. Shapiro. We can provide specific comments. We may also
want to discuss with the staff what we view as some lack of
clarity in some of the provisions around the bypass portion of
the bill. We would be happy to do that.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
We appreciate both of you being here and also appreciate
your hard work.
Mr. Shapiro, in the absence of legislation, does the
Administration lack the needed authority to carry out its Great
Lakes Restoration Initiative?
Mr. Shapiro. No, we continue to operate the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative under annual appropriations. The
structure that has been set up is very similar to the one that
would be put in place if the legislation we are discussing was
passed.
The legislation would provide a firm statutory foundation
for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, as well as the
advisory board that would be created and the Interagency Task
Force. That would provide some continuity and more ability to
plan going forward knowing that those entities existed and had
a statutory foundation.
Senator Boozman. Mr. Guertin, you mentioned on the Resource
Protection Act that currently criminal and vandalism fines are
collected. What happens to the revenue now?
Mr. Guertin. Senator, that is a great question. Currently,
if there is damage on a refuge, we have the authority to write
the violator a ticket and collect a penalty which might be
several hundred dollars. It goes to the General Fund of the
Treasury, it does not come back to the refuge or hatchery where
the damage took place.
If this legislation were enacted, it would give the Service
the ability to also pursue restitution or recovery of the
actual damages much as we do with an oil spill or something
similar and directly allocate that money back to the field
station to remedy the damages on the ground.
Senator Boozman. You actually determine the amount of the
ticket and then the Department of Justice--who collects it?
Mr. Guertin. Under current authority to write a citation,
we have authority to collect a couple hundred dollars for a
minor infraction up to $100,000.
Senator Boozman. Then it goes into the General Fund?
Mr. Guertin. The Treasury.
Senator Boozman. If this were to pass, do you envision
increased law enforcement in these?
Mr. Guertin. Not necessarily, sir. We would have our
ongoing eyes and ears of the refuge law enforcement program and
other refuge personnel who would have this as a collateral
duty.
Currently their frustration is if damage occurs, there is
no way to pursue damage restitution and the bill is passed to
the taxpayer. The same people on the ground now would be able
to be leaders in moving forward on a potential solution for
damage restoration.
Senator Boozman. Mr. Shapiro, regarding the Cardin bill for
trying to clean up the Great Lakes with the overflow from
sewage, what would be required? What would the guilty or the
dirty dozen be required to do to make it such that those
overflows wouldn't happen?
Mr. Shapiro. The decisions they would have to make with
regard to preventing overflows would have to be evaluated on a
case by case basis. Some of that work may have already been
done but I am not familiar with it.
In general, the kinds of things you would have to do is
look at the sources of the excess water; in some cases you may
want to use additional storage, expand certain kinds of
treatment capacity and in some cases, there may be leakage of
stormwater into parts of the system that can be avoided. There
are a variety of measures that would be considered to be
undertaken.
I would also note that in the bill, there are exemptions
for extraordinary circumstances that would not result in a
penalty. In general, some form of additional engineering would
be necessary, an investment in order to prevent conditions
leading to the overflow occurring.
Senator Boozman. It must be there that there are a bunch of
non-extraordinary circumstances occurring or you wouldn't need
the bill.
Mr. Shapiro. Correct.
Senator Boozman. Are these older treatment plants, do you
think?
Mr. Shapiro. Are they older treatment plants?
Senator Boozman. Yes. Would a newer sewage treatment plant
be subject to as much problem with stormwater runoff or
whatever the problem is?
Mr. Shapiro. Often, these problems are an accumulation
throughout the entire system. It may not be a problem at the
plant; it could be a problem dealing with how stormwater and in
some cases, combined sewer discharges are collected and
transported to the plant and leakages into the system.
Generally speaking, if it was a new plant, it would be
designed for the right capacity. In some cases, it could be
that the plant is simply pushed to the extreme of its capacity
and needs more capacity. That is a potential problem but there
are other issues with the collection system and the management
of water that could lead to problems that would force a bypass
in the system.
Essentially, you have to bypass when there is just too much
volume coming into the treatment units and rather than run the
risk of destroying or damaging the treatment units, you are
forced to have a bypass.
Senator Boozman. Thank you very much.
Senator Cardin. Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Guertin, you were involved in the field, your
organization, and taking care of a lot of the precious natural
resources that many Americans enjoy from mountains to coasts
and very warm areas to very cold areas.
Across that great span of geography, what are the sort of
consequences you are beginning to see already in those
properties as the result of climate change?
Mr. Guertin. Certainly we are seeing along many of our
coastal refuges, particularly here on the eastern seaboard, the
impacts of sea level rise which is starting to inundate a lot
of coastal and estuarine habitats. We can point to a lot of
that being caused by climate change.
As we move into the interior of the country, there is a
growing belief that a lot of the severity and impacts from the
big wildfires can be attributed as well. We are wildlife
managers so we don't necessarily claim to be experts on the
science behind the changing climate in and of itself.
Our mission is to evaluate what climatic changes are doing
to the trust species the Fish and Wildlife Service oversees.
Senator Whitehouse. You are seeing habitat changes, species
moving into new areas where they weren't before, you are seeing
invasive species and pests?
Mr. Guertin. Yes. The sad story is over and over again,
when you add up the cumulative impacts of drought, fire,
invasive species, exacerbated with an overlay of climate
change, there are dramatic shifts in the composition of flora
and fauna on many of the landscapes.
How the species are responding to that is what we are
working on now and developing adaptation strategies under the
Administration's Wildlife Adaptation Management Plan and
stepping that down into the action agencies for implementation.
Senator Whitehouse. Some of the natural resources that we
find on this earth that are at risk and are actually suffering
some consequences already are ones that in turn provide benefit
to the environment. When you lose them, you don't just lose
them, it creates a knock-on effect. A dune on a coast, when it
is gone, doesn't protect the headlands behind it. A forest,
when it is dead, doesn't protect the streams that run through
it.
Could you elaborate a bit on the extent to which some of
this natural infrastructure is actually providing ongoing value
beyond its mere existence into the larger natural resource we
all enjoy and depend on?
Mr. Guertin. I think a good example would be the
intermountain west, Senator. When you add up the impacts from
ongoing drought and invasive species, pine bark beetle, and
overlay that with a series of wildfires, overlay that with
changing climatic conditions, we are seeing a large change in
the composition of forests out there and the Rocky Mountain
region in particular and the kind of animals that utilize those
habitats out there.
That is a pretty striking example that comes home to roost
every summer as communities and the wild urban interface have
to struggle with the severity of these fires and the large
amount of Federal dollars now being expended to protect the
citizens, protect the public investment and infrastructure and
protect these valuable natural resources well.
Senator Whitehouse. Along the coasts, is it correct that
there are often wetland verges between the upland and either
the ocean coast or a lake or river coast that exist in a kind
of dynamic environment? If they are overwhelmed and are no
longer successful at maintaining themselves and disappear, you
can then get considerable follow on changes.
I heard some of this when I was traveling along the
southeastern Atlantic coast. There is a lot of storm
protection, for instance, from these oceanside marshlands but
if they get flooded so that creatures and grasses who maintain
them cannot survive, then they turn into mud and wash away, and
you have lost all that protection on the shore. Is that a
simplified understanding?
Mr. Guertin. You are talking about seawater intrusion into
freshwater habitats. There is a lot of that going on along the
coast.
Our understanding is if you add up the cumulative impacts
of changes in climatic conditions, erosion, invasive species,
depending on where you are, fire or not, drought and such, we
are seeing a change in the underlying habitat composition
certainly on the eastern seaboard.
A lot of the Administration's work with congressional
support moving forward is trying to develop more resilient
coastlines by engineering natural systems to provide storm
surge protection, a lot of work to try and prioritize where
these key habitats are left and things like that.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Mr. Guertin.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As the Senator from Maryland and me representing Rhode
Island, coastal resiliency is something we have to pay a lot of
attention to. I appreciate Mr. Guertin's testimony.
Senator Cardin. You are absolutely right. Looking at your
legislation, I see how it could very much benefit the State of
Maryland. Thank you for being so concerned about the State of
Maryland.
Thank you both very much. That will complete that panel.
We will now go to our non-governmental, non-Federal panel.
Dr. Bruce Stein is the Director of Climate Change Adaptation at
the National Wildlife Federation. Chad Lord is the Policy
Director, Healing Our Waters--Great Lakes Coalition and Senior
Director, Water Policy, of the National Parks Conservation
Association. Last, we have Mr. Tony Wasley, Director of the
Nevada Department of Wildlife.
We welcome all three of you. As I pointed out earlier, your
written statements will be made a part of the record, without
objection. You may proceed as you wish.
Dr. Stein, we will start with you.
STATEMENT OF BRUCE A. STEIN, Ph.D., DIRECTOR, CLIMATE CHANGE
ADAPTATION, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION
Mr. Stein. Thank you very much, Chairman Cardin, Ranking
Member Boozman and Senator Whitehouse, for the opportunity to
share the National Wildlife Federation's view on several of the
important bills with the potential to benefit the Nation's
wildlife.
The National Wildlife Federation is a non-partisan, non-
profit organization whose mission is to inspire Americans to
protect wildlife for our children's future. NWF is supported by
49 State and territorial affiliates and more than 4 million
members and supporters, including hunters, anglers and outdoor
enthusiasts from across the Nation.
My written testimony addresses a number of the bills under
consideration by the subcommittee at this hearing. Here, I
would like to focus on several bills that we support of
particular interest to NWF.
Regarding climate change, climate change is no longer a
distant concern but already is affecting people and wildlife
across the Nation. A rapidly changing climate, in fact, is
emerging as the primary conservation challenge of our time.
National resource managers increasingly will need to adopt
climate smart approaches to conservation.
S. 1202, the SAFE Act, introduced by Senator Whitehouse, is
designed to help Federal and State agencies more effectively
prepare for and adjust to the growing impacts of climate change
on our Nation's natural resources.
Considerable progress is now being made to incorporate
climate adaptation and resilience into work across the Federal
Government. The SAFE Act builds on a number of these important
initiatives.
In particular, the legislation would codify the National
Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy and
encourage implementation of this comprehensive blueprint for
adaptation and resilience. It would also authorize key programs
in the U.S. Geological Survey that focus on improving the
scientific basis for reducing climate-related risk to wildlife
and ecosystems.
Climate adaptation will have costs but the cost of inaction
would be far higher. The sooner we begin taking meaningful
adaptation action, the more successful these efforts ultimately
will be.
Invasive species are another issue of grave concern to the
National Wildlife Federation. We believe that the most
effective approach to combating invasive species is by closing
the pathways through which these species enter the country and
spread; in other words, prevention.
S. 1153, the Invasive Fish and Wildlife Prevention Act,
introduced by Senator Gillibrand, would help close those
invasion pathways by modernizing the Nation's antiquated
systems governing the import and interstate transport of
harmful, non-native animals.
Current law provides the Fish and Wildlife Service with
only limited powers to declare a species as injurious, a
process that is painfully slow and expensive. S. 1153 would
strengthen the ability of the Service to make timely, science-
based decisions as to whether a candidate for import is likely
to be harmful to the Nation's ecosystems and economy.
The legislation would also give the Service emergency
listing authority similar to what USDA and the CDC already have
to regulate imports that present disease risks.
Quagga mussels, in fact, are an example of this need for
modernization. A close relative of zebra mussels, as you have
heard, they are spreading through western waterways, and
listing is urgently needed to contain their damage.
To expedite their listing as an injurious species, S. 2530,
the Protecting Lakes Against Quaggas Act, would provide
statutory listing of this species.
The Great Lakes are a unique and vital ecosystem that face
a variety of serious ecological threats from polluted runoff
such as we just heard about to a potential invasion of
veracious Asian carp. The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative,
GLRI, was established to address various threats to the Lakes.
Since its inception, it has been enormously effect.
S. 1232, the Great Lakes Ecological and Economic Protection
Act, introduced by Senator Levin, would provide formal
authorization for the GLRI and ensure continued progress in
restoring the Great Lakes.
NWF is a member of the Healing Our Waters Coalition. Chad
Lord, to my left, will be offering additional testimony on this
bill on behalf of that coalition.
Finally, S. 2560, the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service Resource Protection Act, introduced by Chairman Cardin,
would provide the Service with needed authority to receive
compensation for damage caused by others to national wildlife
refuges.
Most refuges already are underfunded and currently repair
of such damage must come from already strained budgets. The
National Park Service and NOAA, in contrast, can recover any
use damages for harm done to their property or resources. This
legislation would confer similar authority to the Service and
is a common sense solution to paying for the damages from
vandalism and other destructive acts.
In closing, healthy wildlife populations and habitats are
core to who we are as a Nation. NWF is pleased to see Members
of Congress put forward legislation to address a number of
important wildlife related issues.
We look forward to continuing to work with you to develop
and pass legislation designed to protect wildlife and the
habitats on which they and we depend.
Thank you and I look forward to answering any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stein follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Dr. Stein.
Mr. Lord.
STATEMENT OF CHAD LORD, POLICY DIRECTOR, HEALING OUR WATERS--
GREAT LAKES COALITION, AND SENIOR DIRECTOR, WATER POLICY,
NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. Lord. Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Boozman and
Senator Whitehouse, thank you for inviting me to testify here
today.
The bills before the subcommittee all seem to do the same
thing, protect our country's natural resources for future
generations. Most of these bills benefit either our national
parks, our Great Lakes or both.
First, we appreciate the subcommittee considering
legislation that helps our environment adapt to a changing
climate. Senator Whitehouse's bill is a non-regulatory bill
that builds upon existing Federal initiatives to set a
framework for coordination on natural resource adaptation
planning. This is important to our national parks.
Rising waters and intense storms threaten our national
monuments in Washington, DC, historical structures in the
southeast and archeological evidence of the earliest settlers
in Alaska. Glaciers that have for decades brought families to
national parks in Montana, Alaska and Washington are vanishing.
Though we cannot prevent some of the effects of climate
change from occurring, we can slow climate-related changes by
reducing the amount of carbon dioxide we emit to the
atmosphere. We can and need to also ensure that we are as well
prepared as possible.
This principle also applies to Senator Heller's invasive
species bill that addresses the damage caused by a particularly
nasty invasive mussel by listing them as injurious under the
Lacey Act. If there is any experience the Great Lakes does not
want to share with western waters, it is the damage caused by
the quagga mussel.
These little creatures have caused billions of dollars in
damage throughout the Great Lakes region and have undermined
entire lake ecosystems. Six hundred waterways and 27 States are
also now dealing with this problem.
Invasive species are destroying the natural resources in
our national parks and wrecking the Great Lakes and other
waters around the country. Invasive species cost the United
States more than $120 billion in damages every year. It would
be much better for our national parks, Great Lakes and all our
ecosystems if we weren't intentionally importing things that
cause such damage to American landscapes.
Senator Gillibrand's bill goes a long way in updating a
114-year-old law, bringing U.S. screening standards into the
21st century, reducing the damage to our economy and
environment and allowing our public lands agencies to focus on
other critical problems.
Wearing my Great Lakes hat, I want to particularly thank
the subcommittee for considering two bills designed to help
restore and protect 20 percent of the world's fresh surface
water. To put that in perspective, the water in Lake Superior
alone is enough to submerge all of North and South America in 1
foot of fresh water.
Even though they are huge, they are still vulnerable to a
number of threats from invasive species, habitat loss, toxic
pollution and sewer overflows which is the focus of Senator
Kirk's bill. His bill would prohibit sewer overflows on the
Great Lakes Basin after 2033. His bill also sets region-wide
reporting standards so everyone everywhere throughout this
region knows when overflows occur.
Even if sewer overflows end tomorrow, the region is still
left with a legacy of environmental damage caused by years of
neglect. A new legacy is being written right now in the region,
one where States, cities, tribes, Federal agencies and citizens
have come together to do something about the Great Lakes'
problems.
In 2005, the region established for itself a restoration
blueprint, the result of a process kicked off by an Executive
Order from President George W. Bush. President Obama followed
up with an implementation plan and Congress has provided the
resources for the restoration work through something called the
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, GLRI.
The results of all this bipartisan support have been
impressive. Toxic hot spots cleaned up after years of waiting
create new economic opportunities. Thousands of acres of
wetlands have been restored creating new, self-sustaining
populations of fish like Lake Sturgeon. Ag lands put into
conservation practices reduce algae producing runoff.
Now is the time for Congress to authorize the GLRI for the
long haul. The GLRI has broad based support from cities,
States, chambers of commerce, tribes, industry and the more
than 115 non-governmental organizations that make up the
Healing Our Waters Coalition.
This initiative is driven from the ground up, coordinates
implementation activities and has created what your former
colleague, Senator George Voinovich, kept calling for, an
orchestra leader at the USEPA. It creates an effective and
efficient mechanism for getting resources to the right places
to do the right things on the ground and responds to the GAO.
Most importantly, it is producing results.
Senator Levin's bill authorizes the GLRI, among other
important Great Lakes programs, putting in place a framework
needed for ongoing and future success. Congresses and
Presidents change; the Lakes are with us forever.
We hope this committee will mark up this bill and send a
strong message of support for this continuing work to transform
last century's rust belt into this century's water belt of
America. Moving Senator Levin's bill would also be a fitting
tribute to one of your colleagues, a man who has fought for the
Great Lakes his entire career.
Thank you again for inviting me to testify today. I am
happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lord follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Lord.
Mr. Wasley.
STATEMENT OF TONY WASLEY, DIRECTOR, NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF
WILDLIFE
Mr. Wasley. Thank you, Chairman Cardin and Ranking Member
Boozman for the opportunity to provide the Nevada Department of
Wildlife's views on S. 2530, the Protecting Lakes Against
Quaggas Act of 2014, introduced by Senator Dean Heller on June
25, 2014.
The Nevada Department of Wildlife fully supports the
legislation to add the genus Dreissena, specifically quagga
mussels, to the National List of Invasive Species covered under
the Lacey Act.
In addition, the Department supports the exclusion of the
listing on operation of public water systems, water
conveyances, storage and distribution facilities noted in the
Act.
The State of Nevada has both quagga-infested waters and
quagga-free waters and therefore must face the issue of quagga
mussel infestation from a unique perspective. Nevada had the
first documented population in the United States west of the
Rocky Mountains in Lake Mead. Containment of this threat to the
waters in which it presently exists requires creative and
adaptive strategies.
Additionally, in order to provide and protect priceless
national resources such as the Lake Tahoe Basin, we must
maintain its quagga-free status. Quagga and zebra mussels cause
significant ecological and economic harm in the United States.
The transport and introduction of aquatic invasive species into
uninfected waters require shared responsibility at both the
Federal and State level.
In 2011, Nevada enacted the Nevada Aquatic Invasive Species
Act, AB 167, which established provisions for protecting the
waters of the State from aquatic invasive species. Established
in the language were provisions providing the Nevada Department
of Wildlife with the necessary authority to prohibit the
transport of quagga and zebra mussels within the State. Other
States have established similar language.
At the Federal level, zebra mussels are currently listed as
a prohibited species under the Lacey Act making the transport
across State borders illegal. However, quagga mussels are
excluded from coverage under title 18 of the U.S. Code because
they are not previously recognized as a distinct species of
Dreissena mussels.
Quagga mussels are one of the greatest aquatic invasive
species threats to the waters of the western States. For the
Columbia River Basin, a 2010 Independent Economic Analysis
Board report estimates that roughly $100 million annually would
be required to maintain infrastructure operations for
irrigation, fish passage and propagation, navigation and other
Columbia-Snake River functions in response to an invasive
mussel invasion.
Such infestations have occurred in the Great Lakes and
other eastern waterways as well as the southwestern part of the
country. In another western State study, the invasion of quagga
mussels into Lake Tahoe Basin could devastate Tahoe's fragile
ecosystem and native fisheries, impact boats and recreation
areas and could cost the Tahoe Basin more than $20 million
annually.
In 2007, quagga mussels were discovered in Lake Mead and
are believed to have been introduced there by the movement of
an infested watercraft trailered from the Great Lakes region.
Since their discovery at Lake Mead, the mussels have spread
throughout the lower Colorado River system, including Federal
and State water supply networks.
Currently, there are no feasible eradication methods
available. However, when the States and Federal Government work
together, we have increased capacity for preventing the
movement and introduction of these invaders into uninfected
waters.
In 2013, in a joint effort between the Lake Mead National
Recreation Area, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Nevada Department of Wildlife, a prevention program was
developed to assist in preventing quagga contaminated
watercraft from exiting the park. Although still in its
infancy, the program has provided the public with free
decontaminations for fouled watercraft moving to other States
and uninfected waters.
The Lake Mead National Recreation Area Project has
struggled with long term Federal funding and exists on a year-
to-year basis. Regardless of funding issues, the program is a
prime example of the State of Nevada and agencies within the
Federal Government working together to prevent the spread of
quagga mussels into uninfected waterways.
However, current Federal law, because of the exclusion of
quagga mussels, does not provide adequate regulatory authority
to assist the States in situations when a watercraft owner
knowingly ignores decontamination stations and other State
level requirements and transports quagga mussels across State
lines.
Further, the provisions of S. 2530 will significantly aid
collaborative efforts between State and Federal partners when
addressing invasive species issues on Federal lands such as
units of the National Park Service.
The Nevada Department of Wildlife supports the Act entitled
Protecting Lakes Against Quaggas Act of 2014. The legislation
is also supported by the Western Governors Association, Tahoe
Regional Planning Agency, National Wildlife Federation, Pacific
States Marine Fisheries Commission, Northwest Power and
Conservation Council, Irrigation and Electrical Districts
Association of Arizona and the National Environmental Coalition
on Invasive Species.
The wide array of supporters indicates this legislation is
both necessary and warranted from an economic and natural
resource management perspective. The Act will assist the States
by strengthening the Federal Government's authority and
preventing the interstate transport of quagga mussels and by
providing increased opportunity for Federal and State
collaboration.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify and I would be happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wasley follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cardin. I thank all three of you for your
testimony.
Let me ask all three of you to respond. I think I will
start with Mr. Wasley first.
Dealing with the quagga mussels, the Department has raised
some concerns about the exception related to the operation of
public water systems or related water conveyance storage or
distribution facilities.
Mr. Wasley, as I understand, you support that exemption.
Could you explain the rationale for the exemption? Dr. Stein or
Mr. Lord, if you have any comments, I would welcome them.
Mr. Wasley. I guess I would say that as a trained biologist
and not having expertise in engineering or water conveyance
systems, part of my concern is the timeliness of this and not
letting perfect stand in the way of progress.
The challenges of water conveyance are not insignificant.
Water comes and goes from States throughout the west, and I
would hate to see something like that hinder our ability to
address this issue in a timely manner.
Senator Cardin. Dr. Stein.
Mr. Stein. We are very concerned about the spread of quagga
mussels across the west and very much support the statutory
listing of quagga mussels in this manner.
The House bill, to which this is a companion, did not have
that broad exemption for water conveyance systems, and quite
honestly, we have not looked seriously at what some of the
implications of that exemption are.
We understand the concerns of the public water managers,
but there is also a concern that transporting water in this way
could, in fact, be a pathway for continued spread of the
mussels. There is an open question, I think.
Senator Cardin. There seems to be general agreement that
the quagga mussel should be listed. If the Gillibrand bill were
law, could it be handled through that bill by determination
made as a result of the criterion that is established in that
legislation?
Mr. Lord. For something like the quagga mussel, probably
not. The quagga mussel was introduced to the Great Lakes
through the ballast tanks of ocean going vessels back in the
1980s, so there would have been no chance to screen for that
type of invasive species.
What we are really looking at are other things that would
potentially come in through U.S. customs, ports, those types of
places where you would know what exactly it is you are looking
for.
Senator Cardin. Dr. Stein.
Mr. Stein. While the primary intent of the Gillibrand bill
would be to prevent new invasions, there is the emergency
listing provision in the bill that I think could be invoked in
a very time sensitive situation of this nature.
Emergency listing has a time bound to it and so could not
be used indefinitely, but at least it could provide immediate
relief that could be used to provide the regulatory authorities
to better put in place the very aggressive actions of the State
of Nevada and Federal agencies in that region.
Senator Cardin. Let me make a comment. You have all been
supportive of the efforts by some of my colleagues, Senator
Whitehouse dealing with adaptation, Senator Udall dealing with
water efficiencies, I think Senator Feinstein has a bill also
dealing with some of the habitat restoration.
Last week, I was at the water treatment facility in
Baltimore constructed 100 years ago and was state-of-the-art
100 years ago. It is still functioning pretty much today as it
did 100 years ago. It is carrying out its function, Baltimore
has safe drinking water. It is good water. It is not efficient
and costs a lot of money to run the operation. It loses a lot
of water.
I would just point out that the Senator Udall's efforts
with regard to water efficiency are something that we all
should be concerned about. We waste millions of gallons of
water in our system because of the inefficiencies and spend
millions of dollars in utility costs increasing our carbon
footprint as a result of the inefficiencies of our water
system. That is just one example.
On adaptation, we have very valuable resources in our State
as Senator Whitehouse mentioned. Assateague Island, one of the
great treasures, is at risk today because of the changing
climate in this country.
We have seen when we adapt and do things that are smart, as
we have on our coasts, we save literally millions of dollars in
damages that otherwise would be caused. To me, the No. 1 effort
is to do what we can to mitigate the circumstances surrounding
climate changes but adaptation should be an area in which we
all agree we can use additional resources.
I really wanted to underscore some of the points that you
all have made on those issues. I know our committee will try,
as we have in the past, to work together in a bipartisan way on
issues such as adaptation and mitigation and those types of
areas where we can find a common area to move forward to help
our communities.
Let me turn it over to Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Stein, you mentioned that the National Wildlife
Federation supported Congressman Runyan's bill to reauthorize
the Voluntary Community Partnerships Act. Could you elaborate
on the value you see from these volunteer programs and
community partnerships?
Mr. Stein. Certainly. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
refuge system, which I believe covers on the order of 150
million acres, is an extraordinary national treasure, but the
budget of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is quite limited.
In many places, they rely on active volunteer participation to
carry out both visitor interpretative services as well as
critical resource management activities.
It is something that many other agencies rely on as well,
but it is especially important on refuges. My understanding is
that in order for the Service to continue to most fully use
volunteers, it needs that reauthorization in order to continue.
The National Wildlife Federation really focuses on
connecting people with nature, especially getting kids
connected to nature because that is our next generation of
conservation leaders and really encourages the type of
volunteerism that is embodied in that legislation.
Senator Boozman. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Wasley, we appreciate you making the long trip to come
and testify. You mentioned that the legislation would help you
to work collaboratively with the Federal Government to address
invasive species, particularly on Federal lands.
You talked about this a little but can you elaborate a bit
more on how the expanded authority would be of help?
Mr. Wasley. Presently, we do have voluntary inspection
stations and compliance, but we still have some folks that will
willfully and knowingly cross State lines with quagga-infested
watercraft either into the State or out of the State.
Having a Federal law, potential violation of a Federal law,
certainly is an additional tool and certainly provides a great
incentive for compliance with that requirement. It elevates the
seriousness of the infraction and will hopefully provide an
additional functionality in screening and enforcing the current
laws we have in the State as well as the Federal law.
Senator Boozman. Very good.
That is really all I have, Mr. Chairman. I do ask unanimous
consent to include the testimony from Congressman Runyan in the
record.
Senator Cardin. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boozman. Also, I ask unanimous consent to include
several statements on the Big Cats bill from the Motion Picture
Association, Zoological Association of America and others.
Senator Cardin. Without objection, all those statements
will be included in our record.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cardin. Let me thank our witnesses. As you pointed
out, some came a considerable distance to be with us today and
we appreciate that very much.
With that, the subcommittee will stand adjourned.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe,
U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma
Chairman Cardin, thank you for holding this hearing.
Since we have a representative here from the Fish and
Wildlife Service, I want to take this opportunity to talk about
the problems we're having in Oklahoma with the lesser prairie
chicken and the American burying beetle, and what I think we
should do about it.
The American burying beetle (ABB) was listed by the Service
in 1989. The Service states in its listing decision that the
ABB was ``once widely distributed throughout eastern North
America.''
At that time, there were only two known populations of the
beetle--one in eastern Oklahoma and one on an island off the
coast of Rhode Island. The Rhode Island population was
estimated to be at about 520 beetles, and the one in Oklahoma
was thought to have less than a dozen.
The listing decision did include some commentary about why
the beetle's population declined, but ultimately concluded that
``the cause of the species' decline is unknown.''
In 1991, the Service published a Recovery Plan for the ABB.
The objective of the plan was to ``[protect] and [maintain] . .
. the extant population in Rhode Island and the . . .
populations in Oklahoma.'' In order to reconsider the listing
status of the ABB, the Service needed to identify ``three
populations of [ABB that] have been re-established (or
additional populations discovered) within each of four broad
geographical areas of its historical range.''
The four ranges identified by the Service include the
Midwest (which includes Oklahoma and most States between Texas,
Louisiana, and Montana), the Great Lakes region, the Southeast
region, and the Northeast region (which includes Rhode Island).
In 2008, the Service performed its first 5-year review of
the ABB. It determined that the criteria for reconsidering the
listing of the ABB had been met in the Midwest region, ``where
additional occurrences of the ABB have been discovered,'' and
that, ``as a consequence, the total number of ABB in this
recovery area is believed to greatly exceed the numerical
target'' established under the Recovery Plan.
This is undoubtedly true. The population now known to exist
in Nebraska was recently estimated to contain over 3,000
beetles, making it one of the largest known populations.
Interestingly, Nebraska was not known to have any ABB in 1989
when the species was listed.
The known population in Oklahoma has also grown
dramatically since the listing decision. When the Service
listed the ABB, only four counties had a known ABB population;
the Service now believes its range extends to 45 of the 77
counties in the State. It is now believed Oklahoma's population
is numbered in the thousands.
Service documents from 2014 reveal that ABB is now found in
Oklahoma, Arkansas, Nebraska, Kansas, South Dakota, Texas,
Missouri, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, the vast majority of
which are located in the Midwest region.
The 2008 5-Year Review further states that ``although one
of four geographic recovery areas for ABB has met the criteria
for reclassification, the species presumably remains extirpated
in most of its historic range,'' and concludes that the ABB
should retain its endangered status.
I completely disagree. The ABB should no longer be listed
in the Midwest region, and there is strong precedence for
delisting endangered or threatened species in some areas, but
not others.
In 2011, the Service decided to delist the gray wolf from
the endangered species list in Idaho, Montana, and parts of
Oregon, Washington, and Utah while leaving it listed in
Wyoming.
This partial delisting was due to the healthy population
levels that were present in those States, and it was left
listed in Wyoming because the Service believed additional
conservation work needed to be completed. Less than 2 years
later, the delisting was extended to Wyoming, and in 2013 the
gray wolf's protections under the ESA were completely removed.
There is also a strong case to be made that the ABB should
be completely delisted. Beginning in 2007, the Service
promulgated an official policy stating that when it evaluates
the probability of a species being lost to extinction across
its range, it does so within its known existing range, not its
hypothetical historic range.
Knowing this, if the ABB were reconsidered as a candidate
today, it likely would not be eligible for listing because the
known populations are not in danger of being lost. They are, in
fact, expanding. The historic range, described by the Service
as being ``ubiquitous'' at some point, is reliant on very old
data, observations, and studies, many of which are not readily
locatable.
There is so little known about this newly expanded presence
of ABB. We don't know if we're just better at finding them now,
or if the populations are actually growing. Whatever the case,
it is clear that these beetles have proven much more resilient
than the Service originally thought.
With this in mind, I plan to introduce a bill next week
that will delist the ABB from the Midwest region. There is no
reason, especially given the lack of knowledge we have about
the ABB, for it to remain as a protected species, particularly
given the fact that its negative impact on economic activity
expands with every new population that is discovered,
especially in Oklahoma.
Now I'd like to move on to the lesser prairie chicken,
which was listed as a threatened species at the end of March.
The decline in this species has largely been the result of
drought--so it has had very little to do with human activity.
It is likely that once the drought ends in western Oklahoma and
the rest of the bird's known range, the population will
flourish and strengthen to the point that a listing is no
longer warranted.
We've seen this recovery begin already. On July 1, when the
Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA)
released its most recent annual lesser prairie chicken
population survey, the bird's range-wide population showed an
increase of 20 percent to 22,415 birds. To what was the
increase attributable? According to WAFWA, the areas that
showed the biggest improvement were ``where more rain produced
better prairie habitat.''
The range-wide conservation plan WAFWA organized is what
the Service blessed as appropriate and thorough, and it is
being used as the primary means to achieve take permits under
the 4d rule. This program is being administered solely by the
State wildlife agencies, and it now has over 160 companies
participating. These firms have collectively enrolled about 9
million acres for conservation across the five States. As part
of this enrollment they have committed $43 million for habitat
conservation, which will be deployed over the next 3 years.
Knowing this, it was extremely frustrating to me that the
Service decided to list the LPC even while it knew that this
conservation would happen whether or not a listing was made
final. To me, it made sense to allow the State-driven
conservation plan to take root prior to making a decision to
impose Federal protection. Instead, the Service demonstrated
that it is a solution in search of a problem, and it leaves me
wondering why the Federal Government is so quick to insert
itself in a situation where States are already appropriately
addressing a problem.
To remedy this, I will also introduce legislation that
delists the lesser prairie chicken for a period of about 5
years to allow the State crafted range-wide plan to take root
and work. If the Service determines after this time period that
the recovery goals have not been met, then it can then reassess
its findings and determine whether a listing is appropriate.
This legislation is a companion to H.R. 4866, which Congressman
Markwayne Mullin introduced just a few weeks ago.
Again, Chairman Cardin, thank you for holding this hearing,
and I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact these
important bills.
Statement of Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senator from the State of California
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Infrastructure
Facilitation and Habitat Conservation Act of 2013.''
This legislation will make it easier for communities across the
Nation to improve their public infrastructure by providing access to
cost effective Federal loan guarantees to mitigate the impacts of
growth on the environment and endangered species.
This bill authorizes a 10-year pilot program, to be administered
jointly by the Secretaries of the Interior and Treasury, making credit
more readily available to eligible public entities which are sponsors
of Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) under section 10 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973.
background
Habitat Conservation Plans were authorized by an amendment to the
Endangered Species Act in 1982 as a means to permanently protect the
habitat of threatened and endangered species, while facilitating the
development of infrastructure, through issuance of a long-term
``incidental take permit.''
Equally important, HCPs can be very effective in avoiding,
minimizing and mitigating the effects of development on endangered
species and their habitats. HCPs are an essential tool, as Congress
intended, in balancing the requirements of the Endangered Species Act
with on-going construction and development activity.
california example
In California, the Western Riverside County multiple species HCP is
a prime example of effective habitat management. The Western Riverside
MSHCP covers an area of 1.26 million acres, of which 500,000 will be
permanently protected for the benefit of 146 species of plants and
animals. To date, more than 347,000 acres of public land and 45,000
acres of private land have been protected, at a cost of $420 million.
In the case of the Western Riverside MSHCP, as with other HCPs
nationwide, this strategy for advance mitigation of environmental
impacts has facilitated the development of much needed transportation
infrastructure. To date, the Western Riverside MSHCP has resulted in
expedited environmental approval of 25 transportation infrastructure
projects, which have contributed 32,411 jobs and $2.2 billion to the
county's economy.
Riverside has been one of the Nation's fastest growing counties,
with a rate of growth during the last decade of 42 percent. Unless the
development of infrastructure can be made to keep pace with this
explosive population growth, neither environmental nor livability goals
will be attained.
In recent years, the economic downturn has slowed the pace of
habitat acquisition in Western Riverside and other similarly situated
communities. Revenue which had been generated by development fees to
finance acquisition of habitat has also slowed.
Now, ironically, signs of economic recovery in the region also
signal increasing real estate prices that will make the acquisition of
mitigation lands more challenging. That's why it is important to
provide communities like Western Riverside ready access to capital now
to help fund habitat conservation projects while real estate costs
remain relatively low, saving them and other communities implementing
HCPs billions of dollars.
how it works
Under this bill, loan guarantee applicants would have to
demonstrate their credit-worthiness and the likely success of their
habitat acquisition programs. Priority would be given to HCPs in
biologically rich regions whose natural attributes are threatened by
rapid development. Other than the modest costs of administration, the
bill would entail no Federal expenditure unless the local government
defaulted--a very rare occurrence.
These Federal guarantees will assure access to commercial credit at
reduced rates of interest, enabling participating communities to take
advantage of temporarily low prices for habitat. Prompt enactment of
this legislation will provide multiple benefits at very low cost to the
Federal taxpayer:
protection of more habitat more quickly,
accelerated development of infrastructure with minimum
environmental impact, and
reduction in the total cost of HCP land acquisition.
A broad coalition of conservation organizations and infrastructure
developers supports this legislation. In fact, the Senate also
expressed support for this concept when it approved a similar, albeit
more narrowly defined innovative financing program as part of the Water
Resources Development Act (WRDA) last month. But where the WRDA
provisions would be applicable to mitigate the environmental impacts
related to the development of water infrastructure, this legislation
would broaden that eligibility to transportation and other public
infrastructure.
conclusion
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I believe it will
encourage infrastructure development and habitat conservation at
minimal Federal risk. It is exactly the kind of partnership with local
government that should be utilized to maximize efficient use of Federal
dollars.
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]