To follow on the last line of questioning about centralization of decisionmaking--Mr. Obermueller, if field managers and state directors are removed from the rule as the specific go-to people with direct responsibility for drafting and…

I have been a little concerned about how multiple use is being interpreted.

I am very troubled by this notion of diminishing the role of counties, that somehow county boundaries do not matter or somehow hinder landscape-scale planning.

Congress could really help to ensure that early-and-often public engagement, through collaborative processes to find that balance.

I'm hopeful that your wise admonitions and advice will change the way the Endangered Species Act is used in the future so species recovery is paramount to other considerations.

I think that if the Fish and Wildlife Service truly wants to recover species, they need to tell us what they want or let the States and local governments figure out what they want so that they can manage for it.

Congresswoman Lummis, definitely the conservation ethic has changed at the local level.

Madam Chair, I yield back my time.

these new rules could alter activities in areas newly proposed or already designated as critical habitat.

The aggregate result is broad-sweeping changes with minimal input from the American public.

the Services are unilaterally promulgating rules that change and expand critical habitat designations without congressional input.

Could an adverse modification be used to stop stream diversions because the water is needed in a downstream critical habitat for a fish?

this committee must look at the Administration's actions on critical habitat designations because they expand the scope of the Endangered Species Act.

I want to focus my questions on the rule allowing for critical habitat designation if the land merely has the potential to develop primary constituent elements.

We need a clear distinction in our minds about what constitutes conservation: on-the-ground stewardship or repeated court battles.

My biggest concern is the part that habitat could develop at some undetermined time in the future.

the regulations will also likely encourage increased ESA litigation and closed-door ESA settlements between the Services and litigious groups.

Will the Agency provide a timeline for when future development occurs for the elements a species needs in critical habitat?

We need a 21st century conservation ethic that is consistent with the movement that the American people have made in their understanding of sound and replicatable science.

You know, the gentleman's time has expired.

These new rules could significantly alter activities in areas newly proposed or already designated as critical habitat.

Bottom line, these sweeping policies will require more Federal permitting that is already bogged down in bureaucratic processes.

Was it interest by bidders, or was it interest by opposition demonstrations?

And what is taking so long?

I just find it interesting that a traditional practice conducted in a traditional place would be changed because of a press release a couple of days in advance that protesters intend to come.