Hearing of the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee - Oklahoma Species Concerns

Hearing

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 two 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% 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 three 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 five years to allow the state crafted range-wide plan 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.

Source