Testimony
of Steven N. Moyer
Vice
President of Conservation Programs of Trout Unlimited
On
Listing and De-listing Processes of The Endangered Species Act
before
the Subcommittee of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water of the Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee
May
9, 2001
Mr.
Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the chance to appear today
to give you the views of Trout Unlimited (TU) on the listing and de-listing
processes of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
TU
is a national fisheries conservation group dedicated to the protection and
restoration of our nation’s trout and salmon resources, and the watersheds that
sustain those resources. TU has over
130,000 members in 500 chapters in 38 states.
Our members generally are trout and salmon anglers who voluntarily
contribute substantial amounts of their personal time and resources to aquatic
habitat protection and restoration efforts.
Because of the declining populations of native trout and salmon in many
areas, our members increasingly rely on provisions of the ESA to protect trout
and salmon and their habitats. TU
supports the ESA and considers the ESA to be one of the nation’s most important
laws for protecting and restoring trout and salmon populations.
The Subcommittee
has asked our views on the listing and de-listing processes of the ESA. To summarize, TU believes that the listing
and de-listing processes, as written in the law, are fundamentally sound. Implementation of the processes by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) is slowed unacceptably because of huge listing backlogs and insufficient
funding. Implementation of the listing
process clearly needs to be improved, but in our view, the solution to the
problem is not to weaken the process legislatively or administratively, but
rather it is for the Bush Administration to propose, and Congress to
appropriate, additional funding for listing.
In our experience, applying sound science to listing and de-listing
decisions is not a substantial problem.
If anything, the Services bend over backwards to check the science and
give interested parties a thorough chance to comment on it.
We understand
that there is considerable concern about the amount of litigation over species
listing and designation of critical habitat.
However, we don't support the current Bush Administration proposed
solution to, among other things, restrict citizen lawsuit enforcement of
listing deadlines. Simply restricting –
or slowing down – the listing process could jeopardize a number of species that
should be listed, such as the California golden trout, which is faced with
extinction. Finally, we must take the
opportunity to urge the Subcommittee to get at the root problem of insufficient
funding and support conservation initiatives which would actually reduce the
need to list species, for example pass the Conservation and Reinvestment Act
and Fishable Waters Act, and provide more funding for conservation programs
under the Farm Bill.
The
ESA list is getting long, and ESA is getting more controversial, in large part
due to declining fish and other aquatic populations around the nation.
If the Subcommittee is looking for root
causes of listing problems, consider these facts. Fish and other aquatic species are in bad shape in many places in
the U.S. A recent American Fisheries
Society study found that over one third of all aquatic species are endangered
or imperiled. The Forest Service’s Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT)
Report explicitly highlighted the fact that more than 100 stocks of Pacific
salmon have become extinct since European settlement of the West, and
emphasized that 314 stocks just within the range of the spotted owl were at
risk of extinction.
Populations of species that are vital to
sport and commercial fisheries are reaching threatened and endangered
status. Thirty three salmonid
species have already been listed (see attached list), including Atlantic
salmon from the rivers of Maine, the bull trout of the intermountain west, and
numerous stocks of Pacific salmon.
Increasingly, the success of the ESA will be linked to the fate of these
once-abundant sportfish species, especially the salmonids of the western U.S.
The
ESA listing and de-listing processes are fundamentally sound as written in law
and do not need major revision.
In the ESA, Congress wisely stated that
the decisions to list or to de-list species are to be based solely on the best
available science. In reality, there
can be no other standard. The decision
to list is, and should be, a question of biology, not politics or
economics. Once a species is listed,
there is flexibility in other parts of the Act, for example, in Section 10,
which allows the taking of endangered species by private landowners pursuant to
habitat conservation plans. Where
conflicts between species and economic activity rise to regional or national
significance, there is an exemption provision.
In our experience, the Services generally
have used this authority appropriately.
We have had disagreements with the agencies over their interpretations
of science pertaining to listing, but in the main they have done a respectable
job. If anything, the thoroughness with
which the Services have conducted their scientific reviews has sometimes made
the listing process frustratingly slow.
For example, it took the Services five years to complete the listing of
Atlantic salmon in part because of the rigorous scrutiny they applied to salmon
genetic data and studies. During this
time salmon numbers have plummeted to an estimated 200 to 300 wild fish.
Similarly, ESA’s mandate to protect
distinct population segments is a wise, essential conservation tool, especially
for species such as trout and salmon, which consist of an array of populations,
like fibers in a tapestry, that give resilience and strength to species. These
populations provide the genetic fitness that species need to survive the
vagaries of weather, environmental changes, and human-contrived obstacles that
threaten them. The individual trout and
salmon populations, which are the evolutionary legacy of species adaptation to
site-specific habitat conditions, each contain the ingredients necessary for
overall species survival. From a
biodiversity and long-term species persistence standpoint, native salmon,
steelhead, and resident trout at the population and sub-population level are
irreplaceable.
Therefore, it is entirely appropriate to
review the current endangered species list and to find 9 chinook Evolutionarily
Significant Units (ESUs) and 10 steelhead ESUs. The ESU is NMFS’ attempt to manage the ESA distinct population
segment mandate in a practical way that is biologically defensible. Conservationists would generally like to see
NMFS segment-out distinct populations within each ESU even more so than they
have done. Conservationists were
critical of NMFS’ lumping of Snake River winter and spring runs into one ESU
when that determination was made in 1992, for example. But while we don’t always agree and we will
continue to debate the biological and legal merits of these issues, we respect
that the agencies have a difficult job in making these decisions and they are
trying hard to do them well.
Implementation of the listing process needs improvement, but the answer is more funding and more aggressive tackling of the backlog, not restricting citizen enforcement of deadlines.
In
our view, the most relevant listing issue is not inadequate or flawed
scientific basis for listing decisions, but rather inadequate funding to get
species listed that need the help that only the ESA can provide. In its FY 2002 budget justification
proposal, the FWS provides helpful detail about the bind it is in regarding
court ordered steps in the listing process, its failure to address the listing
needs of some species not in the court-ordered pipeline, and the limited
funding it has to address its needs.
Unfortunately the solution offered by the agency and the Bush
Administration is a mere $2 million funding increase to a wholly inadequate $8
million base budget for listing, and a plan that would among other things limit
the ability of conservationists to go to court and enforce mandated ESA
deadlines to save species.
The answer is not to limit access to courts but rather to fund the listing program. We recommend at least a doubling of the agency’s listing budget to not only address the court ordered backlog, but also to allow the FWS the flexibility it rightfully seeks to start the listing process for species that need ESA protection now.
Regarding listed trout and
salmon, the de-listing process is not a problem.
Unfortunately,
there are no listed trout and salmon that have been restored sufficiently to
trigger the ESA de-listing process.
This is not to say that the ESA has failed these species. In fact, listing has generally helped
greatly, as I have detailed below.
Greenback cutthroats and Apache trout are the closest to achieving their
recovery targets, but in no way should their recovery be shortchanged. We want conservation programs in place that
will last, not short-term fixes that may yield ephemeral results and a quick
trip back on the list.
Listing of trout and salmon has benefited all listed species, some much more than others, but nonetheless all have received attention and funding that they might not otherwise receive.
The ESA has been effective for protecting
and at least partially restoring species where it has been faithfully
implemented and where political decisions have not undercut implementation,
such as Apache trout and greenback cutthroat trout. These two species have been brought back from the brink of
extinction to the point where restrictive, well-managed sport fisheries are
occurring, providing valuable income to local and tribal economies in Colorado
and Arizona. These species are not
recovered yet, but they are no longer at critically low levels.
The state of Maine had failed to take
steep declines in Atlantic salmon populations seriously enough until a petition
started the listing process in 1994.
Only after the Services proposed Atlantic salmon for listing did the
state forge a conservation plan that, while it had some merits, did not provide
what was needed for real salmon recovery.
Following the listing of salmon in 2000, the state and the Services are
working harder and better than ever before to keep wild salmon from going
extinct, and hopefully some day, returning the fish to its rightful place as a
the most sought after sportfish species in New England.
Snake River salmon have continued to
decline since their listings in 1992, but their path to oblivion is no longer
taken in relative silence. Saving Snake
salmon is now a national imperative, the stuff of Presidential campaigns and an
integral part of Pacific Northwest’s resource debates.
Even for species for which petitions have
been filed but are as yet unlisted – e.g., golden trout – the threat of listing
helped get action. TU’s petition to
list the golden trout has prompted California’s Department of Fish and Game to
address the fact that their fish stocking program was causing hybridization of
native golden trout. It has also
encouraged the Forest Service to address the grazing program on allotments that
were harming golden trout habitat.
Finally, the 1999 emergency listing of Jarbidge
River bull trout distinct population segment was an especially positive example
of a listing that TU was directly involved in. In the Jarbidge case, federal
agencies responded aggressively to a very specific resource problem facing the
southernmost remaining bull trout population in the continental United
States. The emergency listing process,
rarely used in the history of the ESA, was completed for this listing within a
year. This shows how quickly decisions
can be made when the FWS aggressively presses the listing process.
The
ESA’s burgeoning list of species tells us that other government laws and
policies are failing. Don’t shoot the
messenger! Fix the other programs!
ESA listing and protection is necessary
to protect and restore many salmonid species because other federal, state, and
local conservation laws and policies have failed. Our assessment of the causes of the declines that justified the
listing of 34 salmonid species showed that other federal laws had failed to
conserve the species, including the National Forest Management Act, the
Northwest Power Planning Act, implementation of the U.S./Canada Salmon Treaty,
and the Clean Water Act. State
conservation laws and policies have also contributed to declines, including
stocking of nonindigenous species that has adversely affected greenback
cutthroat as well as golden, Lahontan cutthroat, Gila, and Apache trout. If the impacts of declining fish stocks and
ESA are a problem for the nation -- and clearly they are -- then let us fix
what needs to be fixed. The ESA is
merely the messenger telling us that other policies are not working. Therefore, efforts to place blame upon the
ESA are misplaced.
Good
proposals are before Congress now that could help conserve species and keep
them off the list.
TU does not believe that conservation
begins and ends with the ESA. Our
members are deeply involved in conservation efforts with communities, states
and federal agencies. There are at
least three bills before the Senate that could help to greatly improve
partnerships and funding for conserving species, namely the Conservation and
Reinvestment Act (HR 701), the Fishable Waters Act (S. 678), and the Farm Bill
Conservation programs which are set to be reauthorized by 2002. I urge the Subcommittee to look carefully at
these measures and to support them. The
swelling endangered species list tells us that much more needs to be done
proactively to protect and restore species and their habitats. Passing legislation such as these items
helps to get at the heart of the problem.
Remember Aldo Leopold’s admonition to
save all the pieces.
Aldo Leopold,
the father of wildlife conservation, spoke eloquently in his landmark book, A
Sand County Almanac, of the importance of species diversity and need to
keep all the parts of an ecosystem to keep it healthy. TU has embraced Leopold’s philosophy and has
made conservation of native trout and salmon a high priority for our
organization. Listing species under the
ESA goes to the heart of saving all the parts and ensuring species
diversity. We urge the Subcommittee to
support measures that strengthen the listing process, such as increased funding
for it, and oppose measures that would legislatively or administratively weaken
it.
Atlantic salmon- Endangered- Gulf of Maine
Apache trout- Threatened- entire range
Bull trout- Threatened- lower 48 states
Chinook salmon- Endangered- Sacramento River; winter run
- Threatened- Snake River, mainstem and subbasins; fall run, natural pop.
- Threatened- Snake River, mainstem and subbasins; spring/summer run,
natural pop.
- Threatened- WA, all naturally spawned populations in river and streams flowing into Puget Sound
- Threatened- Columbia River and its tributaries to Willamette Falls, OR, natural pop.
- Threatened- Clackamas River and Willamette River above Willamette Falls, natural pop.
- Threatened- various tributaries of Columbia River, natural pop.; also some hatchery populations and their progeny
- Threatened- Sacramento San Joaquin River, mainstem and tributaries, spring run, natural pop.
- Threatened- CA, Redwood Creek south to Russian River, mainstem and tributaries, natural pop.
Chum salmon- Threatened- Columbia River, mainstem and tributaries, natural pop.
- Threatened- Hood Canal and tributaries, Olympic Peninsula rivers
between Hood Canal and Dungeness Bay; summer run, natural pop.
Coho salmon- Threatened- streams between Punta Gorda, CA and San Lorenzo River,
CA, natural pop.
- river basins between Cape Blanco, OR and Punta Gorda CA, natural pop.
Gila trout- Endangered- entire range
Greenback cutthroat trout- Threatened, entire range
Lahontan cutthroat trout- Threatened, entire range
Little Kern golden trout- Threatened, entire range
Paiute cutthroat trout- Threatened, entire range
Sockeye salmon- Endangered- Snake River
- Threatened- Ozette Lake, WA and tributary streams, natural pop.
Steelhead- Endangered- from Santa Maria River, CA to Malibu Creek, CA
- Endangered- Upper Columbia Basin, Yakima River to US/Canada border
- Threatened- Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and tributaries
- Threatened- Snake River Basin
- Threatened- Russian River to Aptos Creek, CA, drainages of San
Francisco and San Pablo Bays
- Threatened- streams and tributaries to Columbia River
- Threatened- Pajaro River to Santa Maria River, CA
- Threatened- Willamette River, winter run
- Threatened- above Wind River, WA, and above Hood River, OR to
Yakima River, excluding the Snake River
- Threatened- Redwood Creek to Gualala River, CA