00:00for questions, beginning with myself.
00:04Dr. Roberts, how has the threat
00:06of litigation impacted a federal agency's decision
00:10to delist a species?
00:12Thank you for the question, Chair.
00:15I believe that the threat
00:17of litigation creates fear in agencies moving forward
00:22with delisting decisions.
00:24I think it unnecessarily delays those decisions.
00:28Lawyers like to be in court.
00:30Biologists don't want to be in court.
00:32And so I believe that it slows down
00:34that process, unfortunately.
00:36Well, how would prohibiting judicial review
00:40within the post-delisting five-year monitoring period help
00:44with science-based decisions?
00:48I believe that that would help,
00:52because in that five-year delisting period,
00:55that's a required monitoring period.
00:57For most of these issues, or all of these issues,
01:00we're very concerned about the long-term trajectory
01:03and populations, not a change one year to the next.
01:07So we're interested in how a trajectory is changing.
01:10And it takes time to see that.
01:12And so that five-year period, I believe, is appropriate,
01:16the five-year monitoring period.
01:18Removing it from judicial review allows those situations
01:21to play out.
01:22I think it's important to note
01:23that the minimum population goals that are established
01:29by Fish and Wildlife Service and enabling delisting are set
01:33sufficiently high that they can be resilient
01:37to some unforeseen circumstances,
01:39thus limiting the need to respond through litigation.
01:46Well, that resiliency has been shown
01:48with both the gray wolf population
01:51and the grizzly bear population in Wyoming.
01:53I think both of those species are an example
01:56of how state management actually works
01:59to protect a recovered population
02:04and shows the resiliency that you're talking about.
02:07Isn't that correct?
02:08Yes, I would say so.
02:09There may be some debate about the particular methods
02:14that are used in those states.
02:15But we need to remember the Endangered Species Act is
02:17focused on preventing an animal from going extinct.
02:21That is the purview of the Endangered Species Act.
02:24And it is clear that wolves and grizzly bears are not
02:28in danger of extinction in the northern Rocky Mountains.
02:31Mr. Guardado, the issues you have raised today are a perfect
02:34example of how local agency bureaucrats are able
02:38to place mandates on the operations of infrastructure
02:42that has billions of dollars in direct
02:44and indirect economic impacts with little or no approval
02:48from political appointees or Congress.
02:50How does providing a clear and consistent definitions
02:53for terms such as environmental baseline create more certainty
02:58for the communities you serve and limit the discretion
03:01of agency bureaucrats?
03:03Well, thank you.
03:04Well, as a result related to the environmental baseline,
03:08in our particular case, we have a Freeman diversion.
03:10And rather than just separating out the status of the species
03:14and using that as the baseline and the existing operations,
03:17a compilation of that baseline along with future operations
03:21and a future project are tacked on,
03:23which make it virtually impossible
03:25in its current state to achieve any type of requirements.
03:29Right now at the Freeman diversion, we have a situation
03:32where the National Marine Fisheries Service has a preferred
03:35legacy project of their own, which is a price tag
03:38of about $250 million,
03:41which imagine a concrete platform the size
03:44of a football field in the middle of a river,
03:46wiping out existing ecosystem
03:49when we have another alternative that's about $20 million
03:53that meets all of the design criteria,
03:55all of the species criteria,
03:57to ensure that it's not only protected
03:59but it has a viable recovery state.
04:02So these are clear examples where, you know,
04:05the amendments here in this ESA, it's not to dissolve the ESA.
04:09It's to improve it, to provide clarity
04:12so that we can actually move projects forward
04:14and save the taxpayers a lot of money.
04:16I think one mistake that people make is
04:19that when a species is delisted or downlisted,
04:23there is continuing management and monitoring.
04:26In fact, one of the factors for delisting is
04:28that there must be an adequate regulatory mechanism in place
04:32to protect that species into the long term.
04:35So when the gray wolf in Wyoming, for example,
04:38was delisted, the state of Wyoming has taken
04:41over the monitoring and the management and been able
04:44to protect a recovered population
04:47for literally decades at this point.
04:50So I appreciate your comments and your testimony
04:53and the insight that you bring.
04:55I now will call on
Comments