ESA Working Group

Wildfires in our national forests damage or destroy an average of nearly 4 million acres across the United States each year. Over the last month, eight fires spanning nine counties in Central Washington have and are continuing to ravage more than 355,000 acres of land, including private property. The Carlton Complex fire alone consumed over 260,000 acres in Okanogan County and is recorded as the largest wildfire in our state’s history. This means more than half a million acres in Central Washington have been burned in just the past two years.

I recently toured the devastating damage caused by the Carlton Complex fire, which has left over 300 families without homes and cost local, state, and federal agencies an estimated $74 million. I had the opportunity to meet with local residents, the U.S. Forest Service, firefighters, and other first responders on the ground in Okanogan County and hear firsthand the firefighting and rebuilding challenges these rural communities are facing.

Click on the photos to download in high resolution.

Sadly, poor management of federal forestland was a major contributor to the expansion of the Carlton Complex fire. Each year, Washington’s national forests grow three times faster than they die. Recently, the threat of lawsuits have prevented the U.S. Forest Service from conducting reasonable projects to salvage valuable timber, remove dead or diseased trees, and get rid of ash and sediment that destroy habitats for endangered species. Without these responsible activities to remove excess growth, our national forests have become increasingly susceptible to catastrophic wildfires that threaten our homes, public safety, water supply, and the economic livelihood of our communities.

As we have seen so tragically in Okanogan County, the lack of proper land management by the federal government has serious implications for nearby communities. The most effective way to keep our forests healthy is by active management of our federal forests. In May, the House of Representatives took action to reduce the risk of these catastrophic wildfires by passing the “Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act,” a bill I authored that would restore active and responsible management in federal forests.

Our forests, communities, and species deserve better than being placed at continual and increasing risk of catastrophic wildfires. I urge federal land managers to work with local officials, tribes, and interest groups to find better solutions that will improve forest health, including harvesting timber to protect these lands and local economies.

My staff and I are in close communication with the federal, state, and local authorities on the ground in Okanogan County. I joined Senators Murray and Cantwell and Congressman Dave Reichert in sending a letter to President Obama requesting long-term federal assistance to help these communities respond, rebuild, and cope with this tragedy. We are committed to ensuring the necessary resources are available to respond to this devastating fire. Furthermore, a thorough review must be conducted, once the Carlton Complex fire is fully contained, to learn how this fire grew so rapidly and what can be done differently to protect us from these devastating wildfires in the future.

Our hearts go out to the victims of the recent wildfires in our area. The outpouring of support for these communities does not go unnoticed. There is no question that the rebuilding process will be a long one. We extend our deepest gratitude to the thousands of firefighters, first responders, volunteers, and local officials that are helping residents recover and get back on their feet. Anyone interested in helping wildfire relief efforts is encouraged to contact the American Red Cross at 1-800-REDCROSS or by going to redcross.org/donate.

From the decimation of our timber industry to severe restrictions placed on our growers, those of us in the Pacific Northwest are all too familiar with the severe impact that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) can have on our local communities – often with little benefit to the species this law is intended to protect. In recent years, communities throughout the nation have begun to face similar problems with these frequent ESA listings.

The 40-year-old Endangered Species Act was last renewed by Congress in 1988 – long before the Internet and cell phones were as widespread as they are today. With new technologies available and strong support for conserving endangered species, there are key areas where improvements could be made to bring the law into the 21st century.

Most recently here in Central Washington, the court-mandated listing of the White Bluffs bladderpod, a plant found on thousands of acres of land in Franklin and Benton Counties, is a prime example of that is wrong with the ESA law. I firmly believe that local officials understand the needs of their communities better than unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., and yet the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pushed through the listing of this plant in spite of DNA data compiled by local officials that found no difference between the White Bluffs bladderpod and plants found in three other states. What makes the White Bluffs bladderpod in Central Washington different from one in Oregon or Idaho? The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been unable to answer this simple question, and yet went forward with this listing that could severely restrict the use of fertile farmland in Central Washington.

Instead of focusing on working together to recover species that are at risk, the ESA has become a litigant’s dream. More than 500 ESA-related lawsuits have been filed against the government in the past six years alone – meaning that the courts, and not the scientists, are making the decisions over what species need protection.

That is why I’m proud to report the House of Representatives recently passed H.R. 4315, the “Endangered Species Transparency and Reasonableness Act,” a bill I introduced that will help update and improve the ESA. Specifically, this legislation will increase transparency by making the science used in these decisions public online, ensure greater input opportunities by states, localities, and Indian tribes in species listings, and reduce taxpayer-financed attorneys’ fees to help invest more funding in actual species recovery.

After more than four decades, it is past time for the Endangered Species Act to be modernized and updated. H.R. 4315 would help restore the original intent of the ESA – to conserve species – and make the law more effective for both species and people. The House’s approval – with Republican and Democrat support – of this bill is an important first step forward.

Several priorities, authored by Congressman Doc Hastings, that help preserve the ability of Central Washington growers to continue farming were included in the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2015. The bill passed the House of Representatives with overwhelming bipartisan support early Friday morning.

A Hastings provision in the report accompanying the bill encourages the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to re-write six Biological Opinions (bi-ops) that were previously developed using flawed science. Several of these bi-ops include buffer zones that would prohibit the use of vital crop protection tools 500 to 1,000 feet from any body of water or dry stream bed, jeopardizing production on sixty percent of farmland in Washington state. The bi-ops would also put human health at risk by restricting the ability to control disease-carrying mosquito populations.

“Our farmers deserve for their federal government to take the time to develop sound policies that are based on the best available science, instead of flawed regulations that are rushed through because of expediency,” said Congressman Hastings. “The National Research Council and the Fourth Circuit Court have affirmed that these biological opinions are baseless. It’s time for NMFS to go back and fix these bi-ops, instead of imposing defective regulations on our farmers that make it more difficult for them to do their jobs.”

Following a report released by the National Research Council in April 2013 that called the science used to develop these bi-ops into question, NMFS, the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture developed a new process to assess whether certain pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides have an impact on endangered species. Hastings’ language would encourage NMFS to reconsider the six existing bi-ops using this new process.

Also included in the House-passed appropriations bill is a Hastings amendment that prevents the federal government from imposing questionable buffer zone requirements on Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF) grant recipients. Local salmon recovery efforts are successful because they are community-based solutions. Hastings’ amendment, which was approved by voice vote, simply prevents the federal government from adding prerequisites before PCSRF funds are awarded, respecting the unique geographical priorities of agricultural areas and locally-driven solutions to salmon recovery.

“For the past 15 years, a large part of the success of salmon recovery in the Northwest and other states has been through locally-driven solutions funded through the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund,” said Hastings during debate on the House Floor. “My amendment will ensure that these funds continue to benefit salmon through on-the-ground projects, but without questionable buffer guidelines imposed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as a condition of their use.”

H.R. 4660, the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2015, authorizes funding for federal agencies, including the Department of Commerce, which has jurisdiction over the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration. The bill, with Hastings’ language included, passed the House of Representatives by a bipartisan vote of 321 to 87 early Friday morning, and now advances to the U.S. Senate for consideration.

###

Today, Congressman Doc Hastings (R-WA) received the “Water Statesman Award” from the National Water Resources Association (NWRA), in recognition of his career as a defender and champion of western water issues. Hastings, who chairs the House Committee on Natural Resources, received the award following his address to the National Water Resources Association Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C.

Sunnyside Irrigation District and NWRA Water Supply Task Force Chairman Jim Trull (left)
and NWRA President Tom Myrum (right) with Congressman Doc Hastings.

“Doc has been a strong advocate for western water interests. He has fought for better management of our natural resources and has a common sense approach to getting things done,” said Jim Trull, District Manager, Sunnyside Irrigation District and NWRA Water Supply Task Force Chairman. “Doc, a devoted family man has served the 4th congressional district and water users around the west well.”

“For two decades, Congressman Doc Hastings has been one of the strongest voices for western water users in Congress. His efforts have benefited Washington State, as well as water users throughout the nation,” said Tom Myrum, NWRA President and Washington State Water Resources Association Executive Director. “The National Water Resources Association thanks Doc for his work and is proud to present him with our Water Statesman Award, our association's highest honor.”

Hastings delivered the following prepared remarks at the NWRA Annual Meeting, highlighting hydropower as a clean, renewable energy resource; California water issues; and the need to update and improve the Endangered Species Act:

“Thank you for that kind introduction, Jim. It’s a pleasure once again to be here.

As many of you know, I represent a district in central Washington State. Of course, I’d like to say that our area is the most productive agricultural region in our nation. Yet, that would be unfair because there are many other arid desert areas have been transformed because of legendary Bureau of Reclamation projects.

These projects, including hundreds of dams and thousands of miles of canals, have not only transformed the West into what it is today, but they provide food and fiber for billions across the country and the world. When consumers go to the grocery store even in places like Washington, DC they can choose and enjoy fruits and vegetables grown from these western irrigated lands.

The water used for these crops comes from storage reservoirs behind dams that also provide emissions-free hydropower. In fact, the Pacific Northwest region is the least carbon-emitting area of our Nation thanks to a whole series of dams – including Grand Coulee – that produce massive amounts of clean and renewable and hydroelectricity that keeps the lights on and our economy running.

But, these legendary projects are under constant assault from age and environmental litigation. Despite the known and widely regarded successes associated with the Bureau of Reclamation and Army Corps of Engineers projects, the flow of our Columbia River system had been managed by a federal judge who knew little about science or engineering. Over the past decade, these projects have been managed by litigation, and judicial action and reaction because of the Endangered Species Act. As California is now painfully witnessing, we are at a point in the West where species are becoming more important than people.

Let me talk a bit about California. The House Natural Resources Committee has spent considerable time investigating and trying to resolve the water issues in California. Without a doubt, the lack of rainfall has led to a drought. Yet, the drought has been exacerbated by federal regulations that have released over 800,000 acre feet of storage into the Pacific Ocean. Undoubtedly, that water could and should be in storage now, but it isn’t because of an endangered three-inch Delta Smelt.

As it stands now, irrigators in the San Joaquin Valley are slated to receive zero percent of their water and, as a result, unemployment is going to skyrocket. It’s a travesty that was completely avoidable.

The House has acted twice on this matter and we are still waiting for the Senate to act. It’s fine if the Senate has an alternative approach, but it must act and we must then find a solution together to avoid another man-made drought.

Certainly one of the longer-term solutions to resolving the California situation and droughts throughout the West is more water storage. Dams and reservoirs were designed to capture water in normal times to provide water in dry times. That’s why the West has prospered, yet federal regulations and lack of vision have undercut our ability to build more multi-purpose storage on a comprehensive basis.

As many of you know, the Yakima basin is in real need of storage. Conservation is important in the basin and must be part of that solution, but storage is the key to meeting water supply needs.

Republicans on the Natural Resources Committee have introduced three bills to build more storage through innovative means and through what’s called “one-stop-shop” permitting reforms. We owe it to future generations to plan and to build these projects now before we get to a mindset in this country that big projects like these are unattainable and shouldn’t be pursued.

These projects can also provide hydropower. This is an audience I certainly don’t need to convince about the benefits of hydropower. Yet, because of politics, some of the most vocal climate change activists are incapable of plainly stating that low-cost hydropower is a clean energy source, a renewable energy source, and a non-emitting energy source.

While it’s astonishing that hydropower as a renewable energy source is even a matter of debate, it is even more astonishing that some demand the removal of the four Snake River dams in the name of climate change. This is pure politics and hypocrisy at its worst. If you are serious about global warming, you can’t seriously support Snake River dam removal when hydropower is a non-emitting energy source.

On the flip side of federal regulations, we have pushed for the reform of the federal hydropower relicensing process. A process where federal resource agencies extort dam owners to make costly improvements that have little or nothing to do with the environment.

For example, a public utility district wants to put a 6 megawatt facility at the Enloe Dam far above migratory fish habitat. This effort has been sidetracked by the Bureau of Land Management for almost a decade for something that has nothing to do with the environment or fish. There is truly no accountability. If we want clean and renewable power, these bureaucratic hurdles must stop.

We did clear some bureaucratic hurdles with the passage of the Tipton conduit hydropower bill. This public law is a significant accomplishment and is the first west-wide authorization of hydropower in decades – clearing up multi-agency confusion on over 29,000 miles of federal canals and allowing irrigators the first right-of-refusal in developing hydropower in canals, pipes and ditches.

Now, the Bureau of Reclamation must implement this law properly to ensure so that we have more hydropower investment while protecting irrigators and their water supplies. I thank NWRA for their leadership in supporting this bill.

I want to focus on two areas that I know are significant concerns during your visit to Washington, DC this year: The Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act.

First, as many of you heard yesterday from my staff, we have put considerable work on the Endangered Species Act, which has not been amended or reauthorized in 26 years. Serial litigants have abused the law. At the same time, only 2 percent of species have actually been recovered.

We can do better for species and people. Yet, many of the serial litigants are fighting hard to keep the status quo.

In response, Wyoming’s Congresswoman, Cynthia Lummis, and I started the Endangered Species Working Group. This Group was composed of Republicans throughout the U.S. to help build the national case for modest improvements to the ESA.

We in the West know firsthand about the ESA, but the mega-settlements entered into by the Obama Administration’s Fish and Wildlife Service, the Center for Biological Diversity and the WildEarth Guardians will continue to bring the ESA issue to many more Americans.

The Working Group proposed dozens of reforms. The first of those reforms, principally dealing with the need for data and litigation transparency, were introduced as legislation last week.

The Natural Resources Committee will hold a hearing on those bills next week. We fundamentally believe that these simple, straightforward and common sense reforms will improve the ESA for people and species. We look forward to working with you on these efforts.

Second, while our bills are aimed at improving the regulatory environment, the Obama Administration made matters worse when it announced a revised “Waters of the U.S.” proposal last week. As many of you know, this proposal is the non-legislative form of the old Jim Oberstar bill from four years ago which sought to take the word “navigable” out of the Clean Water Act, effectively regulating almost every body of water – including irrigation canals.

This is a massive federal overreach, guaranteeing more paperwork, more bureaucratic red tape and federal micromanagement of private landowners – not better water quality.

I urge you in your visits this week to talk to your representatives and their staff to give firsthand accounts of what this means to your water districts. There will be congressional action to stop this proposal but we need your help.

As always, we face daunting tasks even in the midst of successes. For this reason, you are vitally important to bringing it home about how federal actions impact your farmers, communities and even the nation. You are the ones on the ground who deal with federal regulations every day, you have a story tell and you should tell it.

I commend you for your hard work and dedication and look forward to working with you in these important endeavors.

With that, I say thank you for inviting me to join you and would like to open it up to a few questions.”

###

Yesterday, the bipartisan Western Governors’ Association, led by Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper and Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval, issued a letter praising the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Congressional Working Group for its recent report and recommendations for improving the ESA. The letter specifically highlights their support for several areas of reform that align with the Working Group Report, including strengthening states’ role, greater use of state data and using sound science in ESA decisions, and clarity and transparency of ESA definitions. The letter states:

“Western Governors have called on Congress to amend and reauthorize the ESA. The Working Group’s report covers a breadth of ESA reform issues. We are particularly pleased to see that your recommendations call for significant enhancement of the role of states. The ESA statute is premised on a strong federal-state partnership but, in practice, the role of states has become increasingly limited over time. Western Governors encourage Congress to implement ESA reforms that reinstate the robust state engagement envisioned under the Act.”

“I’m pleased by the bipartisan support we’ve received from the Western Governors’ Association for several of the Working Group’s recommendations. I strongly believe there are targeted ways to improve and modernize the ESA for the 21^st century. Improving state and local participation and transparency of science and data are essential components. I look forward to continuing to work with state governors as we move ahead with sensible, targeted reforms,” said ESA Working Group Co-Chair Doc Hastings (WA-04).

“I am very pleased that our Working Group’s report has struck common ground with the governors who simply know their states better than Washington, including their land, water, and wildlife,” said Lummis. “Our governors in the west are conservation leaders, putting actual boots-on-the-ground to conserve species and habitat. This has never been more evident than in recent years, where states have poured enormous time, money and effort into protecting species targeted for federal listing like the greater sage grouse and lesser prairie chicken. Home grown conservation works, and we can harness it most effectively under the Endangered Species Act by making states equal partners. I thank the Western Governors for their support and I look forward to continue working with them on this issue,” said ESA Working Group Co-Chair Cynthia Lummis (WY-At large).

###

Improving the Endangered Species Act for the 21st Century
By ESA Working Group Co-Chairs Doc Hastings and Cynthia Lummis
The Daily Caller
3/11/2014

Over forty years ago, Congress passed the Endangered Species Act (ESA) with the noblest of intentions – conserve and recover wildlife facing preventable extinction. This is a moral obligation on which we can all agree. But with a species recovery rate of only two percent, the ESA has proven to be ineffective at protecting truly imperiled species and has unnecessarily hurt people’s livelihoods in the process. We can protect endangered species without unduly burdening the American people, but to do so we need a stronger, more effective ESA.

The ESA has not been updated by Congress since 1988 and a lot has changed over the last two and a half decades. In 1988 there was no Internet in our homes, people sent letters instead of emails, we listened to music on a Walkman instead of an iPod, and no one had heard of smart phones or text messages. Today, we wouldn’t depend on technology from the 1980s and, similarly, we shouldn’t assume that a law last reviewed in the 1980s is the best and most effective for today’s world.

That’s why we formed an ESA working group last year to determine whether and how the law can be improved to work better for both species and people in the 21st Century.

The working group, consisting of thirteen Republican House Members from across the country, embarked on an eight month-long fact-finding mission. We fielded hundreds of public comments. We heard the testimony of 70 witnesses before the House Natural Resources Committee and held a public forum featuring a broad spectrum of views on the ESA. And earlier this month we released a final report documenting our findings and recommendations.

The working group found that much has changed since the law was first enacted, including the American public’s growing understanding of and appreciation for species conservation. Today, there are countless examples of effective conservation programs at the state and local level that respect multiple sets of values. Those who live near, work on, and enjoy our lands, waters, and wildlife show a tremendous commitment to conserving natural resources and a capability to do so without creating unnecessary conflicts with people. This boom in conservation awareness is a success story in and of itself, but the working group found that the ESA has simply fallen behind our ability to conserve and recover species. Instead, the ESA is stuck in a litigation-driven model that rewards those who prefer to use the courtroom at the expense of those who actually practice positive conservation efforts.

In our final report, the Working Group identified several specific areas for improvement. First and foremost, we need to update the ESA to make it more successful where it matters most – recovering species. Actual boots-on-the-ground conservation helps species far more than flowery courtroom speeches.

Another essential step towards improving the ESA is ensuring its transparency in the decisions and scientific data surrounding it. People deserve to actually see the evidence that the federal government is using for major ESA decisions, including listing a species as endangered, designating critical habitat, or using data as evidence for a species’ decline. Done poorly, these decisions can create significant economic burdens on citizens and impact private property and water rights. At the same time, it reduces the federal government’s ability to effectively and efficiently prioritize resources for the most imperiled species. To instill public confidence, these far-reaching decisions should be based on reliable data, and that data should be publicly available and accessible, particularly if it is taxpayer funded.

Moreover, ESA decisions lack credibility when they are made as a result of statutory deadlines and related lawsuit settlements written behind closed doors with no input from the people actually affected by the decisions. The groups that file these lawsuits often do so to enforce inflexible timeframes under the ESA that apply regardless of whether species are truly imperiled or not. That forces agencies into settlement agreements without the benefit of any public process. At the same time, these groups frequently receive taxpayer dollars to promote their views.

To make matters worse, the federal government does not track or maintain an accurate accounting of the costs to the American taxpayer for these lawsuits, settlements and resulting attorneys’ fees. As such, the working group recommends litigation transparency and reforms to curb excessive taxpayer-funded litigation. But most importantly, this recommendation will refocus federal efforts on real species recovery as opposed to prepping testimony for the courtroom.

Litigation abuses have also removed state wildlife management expertise and their scientific data out of the decision-making process. This is a departure from the intent of ESA provisions that require state consultation to encourage voluntary conservation efforts. The working group identified a need to empower states, tribes, local governments, and private individuals by giving them seats at the table in the ESA decisions that affect them. Just as important is harnessing their expertise and ensuring their data — which are often the best and most current — are prominently used in species recovery efforts.

The working group’s goal is to improve species recovery, not as some would say to “gut” the ESA. Not surprisingly, there are some who would prefer to keep the ESA’s litigation-driven model, particularly those groups that pocket huge attorneys’ fees.

Our recommendations are measured, sensible, and designed to better focus and fulfill the ESA’s overarching goal of protecting and recovering species. We hope our modest recommendations lay the groundwork for targeted legislation to usher the ESA into the 21st century.

U.S. Representative Doc Hastings (R-WA) is the Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee and is serving his tenth term as Representative for Washington’s fourth district. U.S. Representative Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) is serving her third term and is Wyoming’s sole representative in the House.

###

From endangered salmon to the Spotted Owl, the Pacific Northwest has been the poster child when it comes to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This is why, last year, I joined Representative Cynthia Lummis from Wyoming and eleven of my colleagues, representing communities from across the country to launch the ESA Congressional Working Group. The purpose of this Working Group was to start an open and honest conversation about what works and what hasn’t with the ESA, which just celebrated its 40th anniversary.

The intent of the Endangered Species Act was to preserve and protect key endangered species, and there is still widespread support for that goal today. However, a lot has changed in the past 40 years. I believe it’s not only common sense, but the responsibility of Congress, to examine this law to see if there are ways it could be improved and updated for species and people.

Recently, the Working Group released its final report of findings and recommendations. It reflects hundreds of comments from the public, and testimony from nearly 70 witnesses that appeared before the Working Group or at House Natural Resources Committee hearings.

We found that there is still strong support for conserving endangered species, but that there are four key areas where improvements could be made to make the law more effective for species and helpful for our communities.

The first is to restore the goal of species recovery and ensure greater transparency and prioritization of ESA decisions. Today, too much focus is put on listing new species, instead of recovering species and taking them off the list. The ESA only has a two percent recovery rate, and I believe we can do better. Instead of enforcing deadline-driven decisions or litigation – as we saw with the recent flawed listing of the White Bluffs bladderpod in Franklin County – we should ensure that federal agencies take the time to work with those that live and work around these species, and who should have an active role in deciding how best to improve their recovery. A specific target for what recovery means should also be identified when the species is listed.

The second area for improvement is ESA litigation and settlement reform. The ESA today has become a tool for never-ending lawsuits that often have more to do with limiting the activity of humans than achieving recovery for plants or animals, and drain time and money away from actual recovery efforts. In order to enact serious reforms to the ESA, we must begin by discouraging ESA lawsuits, limiting excessive taxpayer-funded attorney fees, and bringing some sunlight to closed-door settlement agreements that can result in the listing of hundreds of species.

The third area for improvement is to empower states, local governments, tribes, and private property owners on ESA decisions that affect them, their citizens, and their land. The ESA Working Group heard countless stories of how state, tribes, and local governments are often more successful at species conservation but are, at times, undermined by the federal government. While not perfect, the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife has been far more successful in working with local residents to manage wolf populations than the federal government has in the part of the our state that the species is still federally listed.

The fourth area for improvement is transparency and accountability of ESA data and science. Decision-making should be based on the best available scientific data, instead of backroom political deals or court-driven deadlines. In the case of the White Bluffs bladderpod, the federal agency failed to even take a DNA test to figure out whether the plant was genetically different than countless bladderpod plants in other parts of the country, and when an outside party provided proof that it was the same, they moved forward with the listing anyway.

There are many other specific recommendations included in our final report, which can be found at http://esaworkinggroup.hastings.house.gov.

It’s my hope this report will further the discussion on the ESA and serve as a starting point as we move forward with commonsense legislative solutions. My intent has never been to introduce sweeping legislation to overhaul the ESA. Instead, I believe there are thoughtful, sensible, and targeted proposals that would address many of the issues highlighted in this report. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the coming months to consider commonsense, targeted ways to improve and modernize this law for the 21st century.

The report is the culmination of the Working Group’s eight-month effort to examine the ESA from a variety of viewpoints and angles, receive input on how the ESA is working and being implemented, and how and whether it could be updated to be more effective for both people and species. The report reflects hundreds of comments from outside individuals and testimony from nearly 70 witnesses who appeared before a Working Group forum and House Natural Resources Committee hearings.

The report concludes that “After more than 40 years, sensible, targeted reforms would not only improve the eroding credibility of the Act, but would ensure it is implemented more effectively for species and people.”

“There is no doubt of the strong and widespread support for helping to protect endangered species. However, our findings clearly show that there is room for improvements and ways to bring this 40-year-old law into the 21^st century,” said Rep. Hastings. “Returning focus of the law to species recovery, addressing litigation and settlement reforms, improving state and local participation, and improving science and data are some of the specific areas of improvements on which I believe we can build consensus. I hope this report can further the discussion on the ESA and serve as a starting point as we move forward with sensible and targeted legislative proposals in the coming months.”

“We all agree on our obligation to protect imperiled species. Our Working Group has concluded that the Endangered Species Act needs updating in light of tremendous conservation advances since 1973,” said Rep. Lummis. “The American people have grown by leaps and bounds in their understanding of conservation, their willingness to conserve species, and their ability to conserve species —the ESA needs to grow with them. The ESA is stuck in a litigation driven model. This outdated model hinders the boots on the ground conservation we should be harnessing to actually recover endangered species, not just spout flowery rhetoric about the law in courtrooms. Our report is an exciting opportunity to bring the ESA into the next millennia.”

The report recommends constructive changes to the ESA in the following four categories:

• Ensuring Greater Transparency and Prioritization of ESA with a Focus on Species Recovery and Delisting

• Reducing ESA Litigation and Encouraging Settlement Reform

• Empowering States, Tribes, Local Governments and Private Landowners on ESA Decisions Affecting Them and Their Property

• Requiring More Transparency and Accountability of ESA Data and Science

Click here for a full list of recommendations and to read the full report.

###

The Endangered Species Act Working Group is comprised of Members of Congress from all across the country with the goal of inviting discussion and input on ways in which the ESA (last renewed by Congress in 1988) may be working well, how it could be updated, and how to boost its effectiveness for both species and people. On Tuesday, the Working Group will present its findings - based on forums, testimony, and hundreds of public comments - and provide specific recommendations for how to update and improve the ESA.

###

As the 40th anniversary of the ESA approaches, I have called together 12 Members of the House of Representatives, representing districts all across the nation, to form the Endangered Species Act Working Group. Jointly led by the Western Caucus Co-Chair Cynthia Lummis (WY-at-large), this Working Group, through a series of events and forums, is examining the ESA from many angles to determine the law’s effectiveness and ways that it can be updated.

On October 10th, the Working Group held a forum entitled “Reviewing 40 Years of the Endangered Species Act and Seeking Improvement for People and Species.” The forum featured 17 panelists, representing diverse groups and interests.

While people in the Western United States have long felt the effects of ESA, negative impacts from this law are spreading to the rest of the country. Participants specifically highlighted the need to empower states, local governments, and private landowners to conserve species, the need for balance within the law, the importance of transparent data and science, and the need to prevent the ESA from being used as a tool for lawsuits and closed-door settlements with litigious groups.

As an example, wolves in Washington state, ESA-listed on one side of a highway but not the other, are threatening ranchers’ livelihoods and landowners’ private property. Wolves cannot read roadmaps and the Obama Administration should promptly de-list them nationwide.

Hundreds of thousands of acres of forests in the Pacific Northwest are off limits, due to the listing of the Northern Spotted Owl. This listing has contributed to a more than 80 percent reduction in timber harvests, shut down logging operations and mills, and is causing an increase in catastrophic wildfires that have destroyed the very ‘habitat’ these policies are supposed to protect.

Recently, over 400 acres of private, irrigated Franklin County farmland has been proposed as critical habitat – severely impacting the economic value and future uses of this land – for a sub-species of plant known as the “bladderpod” that a recent DNA study shows is indistinguishable from plants in other areas.

Despite a record run of salmon, and despite citizens already devoting 30 percent of their utility bills to salmon recovery, certain groups continue seeking through litigation to tear out Northwest dams and eliminate vital tools to protect farm crops from pests and disease with little scientific basis.

And, just last month, the Obama Administration proposed to designate over 2,000 square miles in north Central Washington as “habitat” for the Canada lynx, though they can’t identify even how many lynx there are.

Clearly the law needs to be reformed. After more than two decades since it was last authorized, the Endangered Species Act should be modernized and updated to once again focus the law on true species recovery. Together, all interests must come to the table and have an honest and fair discussion on how the ESA might be improved both for species and people.

One of the fundamental goals of the Endangered Species Act Working Group is to hear from everyone – all sides and all opinions – about aspects of the ESA and how it can be updated and improved. I encourage you to submit your experiences, concerns, ideas, and other information in writing to our ESA Working Group website: http://esaworkinggroup.hastings.house.gov