[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72},"mediaId",6310523,"mediaKeyId","2400999-0b81b2065be00a3d60866ca91b3a5c16","parentId",2400999,"title","Members, witnesses warn agency layoffs at Fish & Wildlife and NOAA worsen permitting backlogs and threaten species recovery","audioSeconds",418,"startMs",4940000,"endMs",5358000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2400999-0b81b2065be00a3d60866ca91b3a5c16&start=4940&end=5358","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2400999-0b81b2065be00a3d60866ca91b3a5c16/thumbnail_4940000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6310523/Members-witnesses-warn-agency-layoffs-at-Fish-Wildlife-and-NOAA-worsen-permitting-backlogs-and-threaten-species-recovery","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6310523-41389919c25b92c918b071c5315c44f9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143281&Signature=GDt5tW~r7F305-v60gV1MR2GzE1QRuaoqDPwFpnSI8DogkmBCp2qNT~211gDCBoJZKsH8N227sPE5DyM92iXPHEILJ5mvGdPJEhIZIugf70nI91BfvM-sYs6t9RFj1GRUbvdhR72-l-YWUzcHCp7EO3IVxcKuywRTj7h1jDHCHup8j91dhpCCl~fQALMzauJd9zbvGHhDA5awt-YtS1xRYjIy-rwzgb8BtGvYkYtkzHf3tvjNqhlZSL-6A-bbEvHs6QSu8Z-zJA9gjzIBmwexzvSIFfBL~dLx7miYtLw9Bpd1rl6duU2wyHKrJhVN~J9qYI6mBKjIRBcWgFF4Su1yw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources","date","2025-02-19T21:21:22Z","article","Members of the House Natural Resources Subcommittee and witnesses at a March 3 oversight hearing said mass layoffs and workforce reductions at federal resource agencies are already hampering species protections and slowing decision-making for permits.

Representative Seth Magaziner complained that \"Last week, more than 400 staff members at the Fish and Wildlife Service were fired...\" and said reports indicated further NOAA cuts could be imminent. Legal witnesses and practitioners agreed those personnel losses reduce agencies'ability to process ESA listings, complete Section 7 consultations, and issue permits.

\"Courts will on the side of caution,\" Professor Daniel Rolfe told the subcommittee, \"so we could actually be slowing down development. We could [be] slowing down permitting by indiscriminately firing staff.\" John Vecchione and others said the lack of agency capacity produces both longer backlogs for species petitions and an increased likelihood that courts will enjoin federal actions that lack completed consultations.

Witnesses gave three concrete effects: (1) fewer staff to complete listing petitions and recovery plans delays protections for species that need prompt action; (2) fewer biologists and reviewers slow or halt ESA Section 7 consultations required before federal permits can proceed; and (3) uncertainty and rapidly shifting personnel policies reduce institutional knowledge required for balanced mitigation and reasonable-and-prudent alternatives. Several witnesses said ad hoc or wholesale firings of probationary employees risk losing specialized expertise such as refuge management, special-agent enforcement, and species-specific scientists.

Members from both parties cited resource constraints as a primary driver of listing delays and asked the committee to consider how oversight and appropriations can stabilize agency capacity while the committee examines statutory clarifications on permitting and definitions.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Oversight Hearing | Water, Wildlife and Fisheries Subcommittee","oneSentenceSummary","Members and witnesses told the House subcommittee that recent mass firings and proposed workforce cuts at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA are creating backlogs in listings, consultations, and permits, slowing both conservation work and project approvals.","taxTitle","Natural Resources: House Committee, Standing Committees - House & Senate, Congressional Hearings Compilation, Legislative, Federal","taxId",1983,"location","","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72},6310527,"Experts: ESA-MMPA permitting mismatch blocks projects; manatee cited as recurring example",255,4369000,4624000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2400999-0b81b2065be00a3d60866ca91b3a5c16&start=4369&end=4624","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2400999-0b81b2065be00a3d60866ca91b3a5c16/thumbnail_4369000.jpg","/articles/6310527/Experts-ESA-MMPA-permitting-mismatch-blocks-projects-manatee-cited-as-recurring-example","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6310527-a2f8510d170cee65c8883770120d4668/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143281&Signature=Iw2n0vqBY468qLXRQ9UVcrYVFqrGpjMydX6jfFeFjQ9~BDubnP-8scVIqLSnccgy~gYZ3tkbsrhaI5rAcowlpARfIiHWZcx1JPRpAEmI1sBU4KAtxlrXEPlHdjHdwmTF9zkQ1uIYSLpvhFSAVEbrdcP--1S-bO709cMb~x0PWZ71RRRh3q9G17eSTT5Vcb-9kq2aFTzE0XD~GgEnA3Yq9SP1RLjXcnsSEvml0MM2Qv-F0G2Mnaml5fZcbuSmjW7I15rTPGVXZpKb9pV6WGi6YFmhXTCdU~sbSiN0cB433FAibYKwvNUNSQm2Jjgm-gcYKyHlgORdjL4tgHvrABqnbw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At a House Natural Resources subcommittee hearing, practitioners warned that statutory and regulatory interactions between the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act can prevent ordinary projects from receiving necessary federal permits.

Parker Moore, an environmental attorney with Beveridge & Diamond, described a structural problem: when a species is protected under both statutes as a marine mammal and as an ESA-listed species, NMFS's MMPA permitting requirement typically must be satisfied before Fish and Wildlife can issue ESA incidental-take authorizations. \"As a result, projects like marinas, boat ramps, and docks throughout the Southeast that may affect even a single manatee can never receive the necessary federal permits they require,\" Moore testified.

Moore told the committee that the Fish and Wildlife Service \"has never taken the necessary regulatory steps\" under the MMPA to allow issuance of certain incidental-take permits for manatees, creating a practical barrier to permitting. He recommended targeted statutory amendments to decouple or harmonize permitting pathways so that activities affecting marine mammals and ESA-listed species would not be trapped in sequential permitting deadlocks.

Members from coastal districts said the permitting mismatch slows infrastructure, energy, and navigation projects. Witnesses recommended narrow legislative fixes, including clarifying the sequence of authorizations and harmonizing regulatory definitions, rather than wholesale repeal of either law.

The problem, witnesses and members agreed, is not necessarily the statutory goals of conservation but structural and procedural friction between two overlapping statutes that were enacted and implemented on different timelines.","Legal witnesses told the House subcommittee that overlapping ESA and MMPA permitting requirements can create inadvertent deadlocks for projects, citing Florida manatee permitting and the requirement that MMPA authorization precede ESA incidental-take authorizations for marine mammals.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72},6310531,"Panel debates NMFS vessel speed rules, right whale protections and agency authority",481,4031000,4512000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2400999-0b81b2065be00a3d60866ca91b3a5c16&start=4031&end=4512","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2400999-0b81b2065be00a3d60866ca91b3a5c16/thumbnail_4031000.jpg","/articles/6310531/Panel-debates-NMFS-vessel-speed-rules-right-whale-protections-and-agency-authority","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6310531-ac73e50c90368a2df07c99db8c1d7a49/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143282&Signature=hV~PuR9ZtHV1U7lK5W-z29Y2T1WsN4akmzh07Ln91XylSyYNmA35BGFN7lu9gu4tayRXHplON6dzBjXyYU7-JhTCP4T6fYZ8WRYYn7FoTtk3Gi6QoXg1bmqwm0u8OXVs7Je3cJyN8oF-4QBP9Uiil-nLN7Rg~DeDh2pTto6xk9qldqmi0yw0T3ltEoH~gA4VSMKTL8LPB1q5w90Rb-cakLoWrksNZFA6A9Ms-ZsIMPw7shnjL0kY1vUHf7h6BfuabCEmpBw5smHpcae5CibenvkD6masP1MEIaCln80KwauGMRyViLfPJvwE4gIwVZjETfpOgkNBwUdm2g~n656L2A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A House Natural Resources Subcommittee hearing on March 3 considered how the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has used the Marine Mammal Protection Act to limit vessel speeds to reduce ship strikes on North Atlantic right whales.

Legal and industry witnesses described the 2008 NMFS rule that limits most vessels 65 feet or longer to 10 knots in some Atlantic areas, and the 2022 NMFS proposal to expand the rule to vessels 35 to 65 feet and a larger geographic area. \"The proposed rule exemplifies one circumstance in which the precautionary principle can result in an absurd outcome,\" testified Paul Weiland, former DOJ environmental lawyer, and cited NMFS data showing five vessel strikes by 35- to 65-foot vessels against more than 5.1 million offshore fishing trips between 2008 and 2022, which he summarized as \"less than 1 in a million.\"

Parker Moore, environmental attorney at Beveridge & Diamond, said NMFS's 2022 proposal \"would have impacted more than 63,000 additional boats annually\" and described the proposal as a \"solution in search of a problem.\" Moore noted NMFS withdrew the 2022 expansion after bipartisan opposition and more than 90,000 public comments, but the original 2008 speed limit for vessels 65 feet and longer remains in effect.

Members pressed witnesses on the appropriate scope of agency authority and on whether NMFS had a statutory basis to expand speed limits. Witnesses said the MMPA does not clearly define terms such as \"small numbers\" and \"negligible impact,\" which has allowed agencies to pursue wide-ranging rulemaking that some members said exceeded congressional intent.

The discussion underscored tensions between precautionary, species-first modeling and measures of proportional economic burden on coastal and fishing communities. Witnesses recommended clearer statutory definitions, improved transparency of agency models and assumptions, and, where appropriate, congressional clarification to prevent future regulatory swings.","Witnesses and members debated the scientific basis and legal authority for National Marine Fisheries Service vessel speed limits aimed at protecting North Atlantic right whales, and described why an expanded 2022 proposal was withdrawn.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72},6310535,"Loper Bright ruling shifts interpretive burden to courts, witnesses tell House subcommittee",531,3215000,3746000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2400999-0b81b2065be00a3d60866ca91b3a5c16&start=3215&end=3746","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2400999-0b81b2065be00a3d60866ca91b3a5c16/thumbnail_3215000.jpg","/articles/6310535/Loper-Bright-ruling-shifts-interpretive-burden-to-courts-witnesses-tell-House-subcommittee","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6310535-ae22cc3f09f3eb82027ad339e238799d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143282&Signature=iB5i1pKAnkuyrDRHGFDHtLw9ifmEoScKzlKlzXCuXLvgx537JB~6-MRmCzAli8su4CU5dWdY3qoJltqjp6Lw6iCSre9KNPG0qLCyvz3Twj-hCJV07S49AmKXoIhrQnkW04Cc3Gvz3u7k-SoiTZpAQFW8E9jCnY4Fqf3R0j2vJzx4G6~xu~EoLVEQDcSiGW72WUQaMN6xjcPMjYLUJBojmHNGvkaNJshaEy0PQVhD4VI5b1nXcrUJV9XYhLLvWx05E242gXZ0YpHajhKqM-rO9gXyRVHFq1S~PtC40Dtkq7QUbKFvhZ9iLzougMuCuRNhCF2pP9ah9yOywxtsqWaL1Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries of the House Natural Resources Committee held an oversight hearing on March 3 to examine implementation of the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.

The ruling ended judicial deference to agencies'interpretations of ambiguous statutes (the so-called Chevron deference), witnesses told members, placing a renewed burden on Congress to write clearer laws. \"Now that that task has been accomplished, the Congress can reassert itself as the founders believed it would and should set the course for law and policies of the federal government in protecting, exploiting, and managing the nation's natural resources,\" said John Vecchione, senior litigation counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance.

Why it matters: multiple witnesses and members said the decision will reduce the ability of agencies to resolve statutory ambiguities through administration and could lead to more litigation unless Congress acts to clarify statutory text and reauthorize or amend legacy environmental laws.

Professor Daniel Rolfe of Lewis & Clark Law School told the subcommittee that the ESA itself is clear on its purpose. \"The plain intent of Congress in enacting this statute was to halt and reverse the trend towards species extinction, whatever the cost,\" he said, summarizing the Supreme Court's reading of the statute.

Witnesses and members described three likely consequences: (1) courts will supply the authoritative interpretation of ambiguous statutory text rather than deferring to agencies, (2) agencies may be limited in issuing wide-reaching rules that rest on ambiguous statutory terms, and (3) Congress will face political pressure to revise statutory language where agencies previously relied on regulatory or administrative interpretation.

Several witnesses urged legislative reauthorization as a measured response. Paul Weiland, an environmental lawyer formerly in DOJ's Environment and Natural Resources Division, described the ESA and MMPA as \"products of the 1970s\" that have not been extensively reauthorized and said that patchwork agency and judicial interpretation has filled gaps left by imprecise statutory language.

Members on both sides of the aisle said they want clearer statutory language but differed on the desired direction. Ranking Member Representative Marcy Kaptur Hoyle (appearing as \"Hoyle\" in the record) said the ESA is already clear and urged preserving its core protections; others, including Chairman Hageman and Rep. Bruce Westerman, argued for narrowing or clarifying definitions to reduce regulatory burden. The hearing included frequent references to TVA v. Hill (1978) as precedent for Congress responding to court rulings by amending statutes to restore policy balance.

The hearing record shows agreement that Loper Bright changes the institutional dynamics of administrative law, but not unanimity on whether Congress should respond by tightening protections, adding procedural constraints, or leaving existing protections intact while funding implementation.

The subcommittee said it will consider legislative fixes and directed witnesses and members to submit written materials for the hearing record.","At a House Natural Resources subcommittee hearing, legal experts said the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo ended Chevron deference and means Congress must clarify ambiguous provisions in the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act to avoid regulatory instability.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Members, witnesses warn agency layoffs at Fish & Wildlife and NOAA worsen permitting backlogs and threaten species recovery

Experts: ESA-MMPA permitting mismatch blocks projects; manatee cited as recurring example

Panel debates NMFS vessel speed rules, right whale protections and agency authority

Loper Bright ruling shifts interpretive burden to courts, witnesses tell House subcommittee