Interior official speaks out against Republican wildlife bill

The House GOP are looking to build momentum for their alternative wildlife conservation plan.

March 07, 2024

A Republican-authored wildlife conservation bill that would rearrange the Endangered Species Act elicited sharply conflicting assessments and a few hints of potential accord Wednesday.

Introduced as an alternative to the bipartisan but long-stalled "Recovering America's Wildlife Act," the new measure is dubbed the "America's Wildlife Habitat Conservation Act." The two plans share certain broad goals as well as the name "wildlife," but differ in dramatic ways.

The new bill would authorize $300 million for state-level habitat conservation. The older bill offered $1.3 billion.

The GOP plan's funding depends on annual congressional appropriations and would end after five years. "RAWA" guaranteed funding for the long term.

The new measure tweaks the ESA in several ways. The old bill left the ESA alone.

"It is clear from its own data that the Fish and Wildlife Service has failed in its responsibility to recover species," said Rep. Cliff Bentz (R-Ore.). "This bill addresses this dismal record."

Bentz chairs the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries, which convened the hearing on the "America's Wildlife Habitat Conservation Act," H.R. 7408. The bill currently has 21 co-sponsors, all Republicans.

"We're trying to do something that's actually good for wildlife management and is fiscally responsible," said Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), the new House bill's author and chair of the full Natural Resources Committee.

While groups — including the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies — saluted Westerman's bill Wednesday, a top FWS official, panel Democrats and the National Audubon Society voiced opposition.

"The department supports many of the goals identified in the legislation," said Matthew Strickler, deputy assistant Interior secretary for fish and wildlife and parks, "however, this bill falls short, as we believe robust, predictable funding is essential to meet the resource needs of states and Tribes."

Glenn Olson, a National Audubon Society official, likewise said the organization does "appreciate the intent" of the Republicans' bill, but stressed "the proposed funding levels and sunset of these investments ... and the inclusion of other policy measures give us concern. "

One policy provision, for instance, would direct the FWS to prepare potentially looser rules for protecting every threatened species.

Currently, the agency has the option to prepare these so-called 4(d) rules for threatened but not endangered species, though it is not required to do so.

Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) called the House GOP proposal a "Trojan horse" and a product of what he termed "Team Extreme."

"They're expecting you to believe that you can count on them to appropriate the funding every year," Huffman said, calling the measure a "hollow authorization."

The bill would authorize the Interior Department to "allocate not more than" $300 million annually to a new Wildlife Habitat Conservation and Restoration program. The new House GOP bill would authorize up to $20 million over five years for a separate tribal account.

The legislation would also allocate 10 percent of the total to be distributed through a competitive grant program. Other funding would be distributed through a formula that considers the number of endangered species in the state, among other factors, and some restrictions would be imposed.

The federal funds, for instance, couldn't be used for the "reintroduction or management of a species" in a manner not supported by the state.

States would also get the option of pitching their own recovery plans for threatened species, while federal funding could not be used for removing federal dams as a means of restoring natural river habitat.

The most recent House version of "RAWA" introduced in April 2021 had 152 Democrats and 42 Republicans as co-sponsors. The House and Senate, though, have never been able to agree on a funding source.

The latest Senate version of "RAWA," S. 1149, was introduced in 2023 by Sens. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and currently has nine Republican, six Democratic and two independent co-sponsors.

Democratic Rep. Debbie Dingell of Michigan, who worked closely with Republicans on past versions of "RAWA," told E&E News after the hearing that she plans on reintroducing the House version of the bill "shortly" and added that she is "working on" getting some GOP co-sponsors.

"I'm concerned that this [Westerman] bill does not address the biodiversity crisis with the urgency it needs," Dingell said Wednesday, adding that still believes that "'RAWA' is the best path forward."

Westerman's bill includes rescinding a total of $1.4 billion in unspent funds previously provided to Interior and NOAA Fisheries under the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

Strickler said Interior "strongly opposes" the rescissions, and told Huffman that the targeted funds are aimed to the Bureau of Reclamation's "aging infrastructure."

The original "RAWA" arose from the work of a "blue ribbon commission established in 2015 by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

Olson, from Audubon, served on that commission, and he stressed Wednesday that the House bill offered "only a fraction" of the $1.3 billion annual amount recommended by the group.

Nonetheless, Austin Booth, director of the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, said Wednesday that the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies believes the House bill "would help resolve a decadeslong funding gap that needs to be addressed."


By:  Michael Doyle
Source: E&E Politico Pro