    [Senate Hearing 115-77]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                           S. Hrg. 115-77

    LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 1514, THE HUNTING HERITAGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL
                  LEGACY PRESERVATION (HELP) FOR WILDLIFE ACT

    =======================================================================

                                     HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   ----------

                                 JULY 19, 2017

                                   ----------

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov

                                    __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    26-784 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2017

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
                                 FIRST SESSION

                        JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman
    JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma            THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    ROGER WICKER, Mississippi            SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    JONI ERNST, Iowa                     EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama              KAMALA HARRIS, California

                  Richard M. Russell, Majority Staff Director
                   Gabrielle Batkin, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                 JULY 19, 2017
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming......     1
    Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware..    66

                                   WITNESSES

    Nesvik, Brian, Chief Game Warden, Wyoming Game and Fish
      Department.....................................................    69
        Prepared statement...........................................    72
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Barrasso......    84
    Crow, Jeff, Director, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission..........    90
        Prepared statement...........................................    92
    Hall, Dale, CEO, Ducks Unlimited, and former Director, U.S. Fish
      and Wildlife Service...........................................    97
        Prepared statement...........................................    99
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Wicker........   106
    Coble, Kim, Vice President, Environmental Protection and
      Restoration, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.....................   108
        Prepared statement...........................................   110
        Response to an additional question from Senator Barrasso.....   118
    Vucetich, John, Ph.D., Associate Professor, School of Forest
      Resources and Environmental Science, Michigan Technological
      University.....................................................   197
        Prepared statement...........................................   199

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    S. 1514, the Hunting Heritage and Environmental Legacy
      Preservation (HELP) for Wildlife Act...........................   235
    An Open Letter to Members of Congress and the White House from
      Scientists and Scholars on Federal Wolf Delisting and
      Congressional Intervention on Individual Species in the Context
      of the U.S. Endangered Species Act, July 18, 2017..............   298
    Letter to Senators Barrasso and Carper from The Humane Society of
      the United States, July 24, 2017...............................   317

    LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 1514, THE HUNTING HERITAGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL
                  LEGACY PRESERVATION (HELP) FOR WILDLIFE ACT

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JULY 19, 2017

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso
    (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Inhofe, Boozman,
    Fischer, Moran, Rounds, Ernst, Cardin, Gillibrand, Booker, and
    Harris.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

        Senator Barrasso. Good morning. I call this legislative
    hearing to order.
        Today we are here to talk about S. 1514, the Hunting
    Heritage and Environmental Legacy Preservation for Wildlife
    Act, HELP for Wildlife. The bill is comprehensive. It is
    bipartisan, designed to enhance recreational hunting and sport
    fishing activities, to ensure common sense environmental
    regulation, and to protect wildlife and wildlife habitat.
        I introduce this bipartisan bill along with Senators Cardin
    and Capito and Klobuchar and Boozman and Baldwin. The bill has
    been additionally cosponsored by Senators Enzi, King, and
    Johnson. I thank them for working with me and crafting the
    legislation that the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation
    Partnership has called the strongest legislative package of
    sportsmen's priorities in years.
        The HELP for Wildlife Act does a number of things. First,
    it protects wildlife and wildlife habitat across the country by
    reauthorizing important environmental programs. Among others,
    the bill reauthorizes until 2023 the North American Wetlands
    Conservation Act, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
    Act, the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act, the
    Chesapeake Bay Program, and the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Grants
    Assistance Program.
        The bill also provides for enhanced recreational shooting
    and sport fishing activities. The bill finalizes partnerships
    among public agencies and other interested parties for
    promoting fish conservation across the country that will create
    new recreational sport fishing activities and opportunities.
        The bill also ensures that lead tackle, which is widely
    used by anglers, is not unnecessarily regulated under the Toxic
    Substances Control Act, a position reaffirmed twice by the
    Obama administration. The bill also promotes the building and
    expansion of public target ranges for recreational shooting.
        Finally, this bill ensures common sense environmental
    regulation that protects species, as well as farmers and
    ranchers. The bill prevents farmers from being held liable for
    bird baiting for hunting purposes if they adhere to USDA and
    State agriculture best practices.
        The bill also prohibits judicial review of the final Obama
    administration rule delisting the recovered gray wolf in
    Wyoming that was reinstated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
    the District of Columbia on March 3rd of 2017 and republished
    on May 1st of 2017. The bill also mandates the reissuance of
    the final rule delisting the gray wolf in the western Great
    Lakes, and it prohibits judicial review.
        The HELP for Wildlife Act has garnered tremendous support
    from the environmental and the sportsmen's communities. Over 50
    different organizations have endorsed the HELP for Wildlife
    Act, diverse groups such as Ducks Unlimited, which will be
    testifying today; the National Wildlife Federation; Trout
    Unlimited; the Chesapeake Bay Foundation; the Association of
    Fish and Wildlife Agencies; the Choose Clean Water Coalition;
    the American Sport Fishing Association; Boone & Crockett Club;
    Safari Club International; the Congressional Sportsmen
    Foundation; and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, just to name
    a few.
        Many groups in my home State of Wyoming have also submitted
    written testimony in support of the bill, including the Wyoming
    Association of Conservation Districts, the Wyoming Stock
    Growers Association, the Wyoming Farm Bureaus Federation, the
    Wyoming Wool Growers Association, and the Wyoming County
    Commissioners Association. Former Democrat Governor Dave
    Freudenthal, who I think e-mailed you yesterday, has also
    submitted written testimony in support of the HELP for Wildlife
    Act.
        I ask that all their written testimonies be submitted for
    the record.
        [The referenced information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. I will also note that my friend, Brian
    Nesvik, Chief Game Warden with the Wyoming Game and Fish, is
    testifying today in support of the bill. It is an honor. I had
    the honor of spending time with Brian on several occasions in
    2009, including Thanksgiving dinner. At the time, he was
    deployed to Kuwait as the commander of the second of 300th
    Field Artillery unit, which had the mission to running convoy
    operations into Iraq in a very dangerous time. So thank you
    very much, Brian, for coming to be with us today to testify.
        Just as with the WILD Act and the Nuclear Energy Innovation
    and Modernization Act, which both passed this Committee earlier
    this year with strong bipartisan support, this bill is another
    example of how we can work together, both Democrat and
    Republican, to help protect the environment and grow the
    economy. So I look forward to working with my colleagues on
    moving this important legislation out of the Committee and pass
    it to the Senate floor.
        With that, I look forward to the testimony of our Ranking
    Member for his opening statement.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

        Senator Carper. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
        To each of our witnesses, welcome.
        Brian, what branch of the service were you in?
        Mr. Nesvik. Senator, I am in the Army National Guard and
    continue to serve today.
        Senator Carper. Navy solutes Army. I am a retired Navy
    captain. I appreciate you very much. I like to say different
    uniforms; same team. So we are glad you are here.
        Glad all of you are here.
        We haven't seen Dale for about like 20 minutes, so it is
    nice to see you again.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. This is double duty. Twice the citizen,
    that is what you are.
        Welcome, everybody.
        We have considered, as you know, my colleagues know that
    most of this legislation before, and I have supported different
    iterations of sportsmen's bills over the years. I think most of
    us have. I look forward to hearing from each of you. We look
    forward to hearing from each of you about this year's bill, the
    HELP for Wildlife Act.
        I recognize the important role that sportsmen and other
    outdoor enthusiasts play in our economies. We are blessed in
    our State to have two beautiful, magnificent wildlife refuges
    right along the Delaware Bay and one of the nation's newest
    national parks. So this is something that is close to home for
    us in Delaware.
        According to the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation,
    Delaware has about 177,000 hunters. We only have 178,000
    people.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. Actually, we have almost a million. And
    anglers who spend $158 million annually and support almost
    2,000 jobs. Almost 2,000 jobs. Many of these sportsmen and
    sportswomen also invest their time and resources to promote
    habitat conservation, in part through programs that will be
    reauthorized through the HELP for Wildlife Act.
        Hunting is only one form of wildlife related recreation. A
    2011 Census study showed that more than 340,000 people enjoyed
    wildlife related recreation in Delaware, and 71 percent of them
    participated in wildlife watching specifically. Year after
    year, people come to the First State to observe the federally
    threatened red knot shorebirds which stop along the Delaware
    Bay to refuel on horseshow crab eggs along their amazing 9,000
    mile migratory journey.
        As we consider the HELP for Wildlife Act, we must carefully
    balance the different interests at play in wildlife
    preservation and recreational activities across our country.
    This careful balance is especially difficult to strike when it
    comes to managing some of our nation's most charismatic
    species, including the gray wolf.
        As Ranking Member of this Committee, I have made clear my
    firm commitment to ensuring that wildlife management decisions
    are guided and driven by the best available science. The idea
    of intervening in the current science based, publicly informed
    species management process to legislatively delist a species
    gives me great pause.
        In the case of gray wolves, the Committee must consider the
    strong support across our nation for wolf protection and the
    critical role that wolves play in their ecosystems. We will
    hear from witnesses today on both sides of this complex issue,
    and I am especially interested in their perspectives on how
    best to manage this special species.
        I would be remiss if I did not mention the new provisions
    in this bill to reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay program, the
    Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act. Our champion here to my left, my
    wingman on many issues involving Delmarva, Delmarva peninsula,
    Del, Mar, and Buzz is probably out there somewhere in the
    audience. I would be remiss if I did not mention the new
    provisions in this year's bill to reauthorize the Chesapeake
    Bay, and we should applaud Ben for his leadership in important
    sections of the HELP Act for his leadership.
        As part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, Delaware takes its
    responsibilities to contribute to the Chesapeake Bay's recovery
    and sustainability very seriously. I am particularly interested
    to hear what our witnesses have to say about how our Bay is
    doing. The Committee needs a full understanding of the
    Chesapeake Bay program role in assisting State efforts to
    restore the Bay and the role that the Chesapeake Gateways and
    Watertrails Network plays in advancing public understanding of
    and support for the Chesapeake restoration.
        Again, our thanks to all of you. We look forward to hearing
    from you and for you to share your expertise with us. Bring it
    on.
        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much, Senator
    Carper.
        We have a couple of members who have some guests today who
    are testifying, so I would like to first give Senator Boozman
    the opportunity to introduce Mr. Jeff Crow, who will be
    testifying today.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    calling this important hearing. I would just like to take a
    second to give a special thanks to Jeff, of Hot Springs County,
    Arkansas, for coming here today and testifying.
        Director Crow began his career with the Arkansas Game and
    Fish Commission in 1986 and has been serving as Director since
    2016. In 1996 he accepted a position with the Arkansas State
    Police, where he had assignments in highway patrol, criminal
    investigations, training, and SWAT. He retired from law
    enforcement in 2011, after 25 years of service. In 2012 he
    returned to the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission as a colonel
    of the agency's Enforcement Division. In 2013 Jeff was promoted
    to Deputy Director, and the following year he became the
    agency's Chief of Staff.
        Director Crow also served 25 years on active duty as a
    member of the Reserves in the United States Marine Corps. A
    combat veteran of Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi
    Freedom, he retired in 2007 at the rank of Sergeant Major.
        I think you have done everything.
        Director Crow holds an associate's degree in Criminal
    Justice from National Park College, a bachelor's degree in
    Organizational Management from John Brown University, and a
    master's degree in Public Administration from Arkansas State
    University. With all this experience, I cannot think of anyone
    better to discuss why the HELP Act is great for the State of
    Arkansas and this nation.
        I would like to thank Director Crow for his service to the
    State of Arkansas and to this country. We thank you for
    agreeing to testify about this important legislation and look
    forward to your testimony.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Boozman.
        I would like to offer now an opportunity to Senator Cardin
    to introduce Kim Coble, who is here to testify today.
        Senator Cardin. Well, first of all, Mr. Chairman, thank you
    for conducting this hearing. Thank you for your leadership on
    this legislation.
        I am pleased that Kim Coble could be with us today. Kim is
    the Vice President for the Environmental Protection and
    Restoration at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. She started her
    career at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation in 1992. We have been
    working on the Bay for a long time, Mr. Chairman, and Kim has
    been one of those key players as the senior scientist in the
    Foundation's Virginia Office, Delmarva, the States of the
    Chesapeake Bay region, which includes six States and the
    District of Columbia.
        In 2003 she was named the Chesapeake Bay Foundation's
    Maryland Executive Director, where she directed policy and
    management of a diverse team of scientists, land use
    specialists, lawyers, grassroots coordinators, and volunteers
    to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay, and then in 2011 she
    became the Foundation's Vice President of Environmental
    Protection and Restoration.
        Mr. Chairman, I think this Committee has heard me mention
    many times how proud we are of the way that the Chesapeake Bay
    restoration efforts were handled. It started at the grassroots,
    the local levels with the State of Maryland, the State of
    Pennsylvania, the State of Virginia, the State of Delaware. We
    involved local governments and private sector, and the
    Chesapeake Bay Foundation has been a critical part of that
    team.
        The reauthorization of the Chesapeake Bay program is a
    critical factor for the Federal partnership in the program, but
    the Bay efforts receive help from many different programs.
    Several are being reauthorized by the legislation that you
    introduced today. So it is a pleasure to have Kim with us today
    to explain the importance of the Federal role for the
    Chesapeake Bay.
        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much.
        Thank you all for being here. I will alert the witnesses
    that today there is a roll call vote sometime during this
    Committee, so you may see some of us go and come back. Don't be
    offended; we just apologize in advance. We are going to need to
    vote and then come back.
        So, with that, I look forward to hearing the testimony,
    beginning with Brian Nesvik.

    STATEMENT OF BRIAN NESVIK, CHIEF GAME WARDEN, WYOMING GAME AND
                            FISH DEPARTMENT

        Mr. Nesvik. Well, good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
    Member Carper, and members of the Committee. I am glad to be
    back with the Committee. It is absolutely an honor to discuss
    these issues that are important to the citizens of my State and
    across the nation, and I will do my best here today to meet the
    Committee's needs on this particular piece of legislation.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to open by passing along the
    sincere appreciation of the President of the Wyoming Game and
    Fish Commission, Keith Culver. I spoke with Keith here in the
    last couple of days, and he is today presiding over a Wyoming
    Game and Fish Commission meeting in a town you are very
    familiar with, Afton, Wyoming. They are actually discussing
    some of the same issues that we will discuss here today. The
    Commission did want to pass along, though, their appreciation
    for yours and the Committee's work on wildlife type legislation
    over the last several months.
        Mr. Chairman, as you are keenly aware, Wyoming is home to a
    rich and diverse wildlife resource that is valued by an equally
    rich and diverse constituency. Much of the State's wildlife
    habitats remain in pristine condition and continue to provide
    wide open spaces and remote wild country for western iconic
    species like sage-grouse, grizzly bears, moose, gray wolves,
    pronghorn antelope, and elk. These resources directly affect
    and influence the quality of life for Wyoming's citizens and
    visitors from all over the globe.
        As I analyzed the key provisions of this bill, two things
    struck me about the overarching themes. First, there is a
    reliance on the underlying trust and abilities of States to
    make decisions regarding important issues affecting their
    citizenry. Second, the bill places priority on, and provides
    resources for, America's fish and wildlife resources and the
    places that they live.
        Wyoming citizens take very seriously their trust
    responsibility for the management of all wildlife within its
    borders. State leaders have invested significant resources and
    inspired a conservation ethic in all of its endeavors.
    Wyomingites pride themselves on balancing conservation with
    economic development and maintaining a quality of life that
    reflects their most deeply held western values. One of those
    most important values is the reliance on State management of
    those wildlife occupying habitats within the boundaries of the
    State.
        Section 8 of this Act and its provisions to preserve wolves
    in a delisted status in Wyoming provides a mechanism to provide
    the State with predictability and commitment; predictability,
    the State will be able to focus on managing the gray wolf, and
    commitment that as Wyoming maintains a healthy and viable
    recovered gray wolf population, that it will be able to
    continue its management uninterrupted.
        The gray wolf population in our State has been recovered
    since 2002, and the Service has now, on three occasions,
    published a rule that definitively states wolves are recovered
    and that Federal management is no longer needed. For over 15
    years, Wyoming's citizens have been extremely patient while the
    Service and the courts have wrestled with the status of a
    recovered population of wildlife within Wyoming's borders. The
    citizens of the State are ready for predictability and
    commitments that ensure State management into the future, and
    this bill provides that.
        During the 2 years when Wyoming managed wolves under its
    current Wolf Management Plan, its wolf population thrived and
    remained far above recovery criteria. In fact, wolf populations
    and the number of breeding pairs occupying suitable habitats
    remained over 70 percent above the minimum requirements of the
    ESA.
        Because not all habitats are biologically and socially
    suitable, there is a need to manage wolves and mitigate
    conflicts between wolves and livestock and private property
    owners. The State's track record is strong in its management of
    these conflicts, and during the 2 years when Wyoming managed
    the population, there were an average of 35 wolves removed by
    our agency consequential to livestock damage each year. Last
    year, under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Service,
    Federal managers removed at least 113 wolves in control actions
    in response to livestock depredation.
        As currently written, this Act reserves the responsibility
    for the Service to relist Wyoming's gray wolf population if it
    becomes threatened or endangered in the future. The ESA
    mandates that the Service's evaluation of all potential
    emerging threats or changing science and requires specific
    actions if recovery is not maintained. Despite the facts that
    the courts have been the lead in relisting species, they are
    not required to relist species, and this bill does not inhibit
    the responsibility of the Service to continue to oversee, for
    the post-delisting monitoring period, the wolf population in
    Wyoming.
        In Idaho and Montana, where delisting was achieved through
    congressional action, State management remains intact today,
    and the 5-year post-delisting monitoring requirement of the ESA
    has expired. Both States continue to manage a fully recovered
    gray wolf population, and there no longer exists any Federal
    oversight.
        Germane to the core tenets of the ESA is its intent and
    stated goal to recover and delist endangered species, and
    again, the provisions of this bill in section 8 that provides
    certainty to future management of Wyoming wolves is welcome.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I would also like to provide my
    concise thoughts on other very important components of this
    bill. As I stated earlier in my opening comments, this bill
    provides a priority on the protection and enhancement of
    wildlife habitats across America. The reauthorization of the
    North American Wetland Conservation Act, also known as NAWCA,
    is reflective of the priority Americans place on wildlife and
    wild places.
        In one project in our State, in the Upper Green River Basin
    in Western Wyoming, NAWCA was used in a big way, for its
    intended purpose. A $1 million NAWCA grant awarded to the
    Wyoming Game and Fish in 2013 protected and enhanced over
    16,000 acres of critical habitat in the Pacific Flyway,
    benefiting wildlife and their habitats. Also important in that
    is that partners were able to match Federal dollars by nearly
    $3 million.
        Mr. Chairman, there are several other provisions of this
    bill where I offer additional perspective in my full written
    testimony, and I look forward to answering yours and the
    Committee's questions. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Nesvik follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much for your testimony,
    Brian. Appreciate your being here.
        Mr. Crow.

                   STATEMENT OF JEFF CROW, DIRECTOR,
                   ARKANSAS GAME AND FISH COMMISSION

        Mr. Crow. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    Committee. I am Jeff Crow, Director of the Arkansas Game and
    Fish Commission.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent that my full
    statement be made part of the record.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
        Mr. Crow. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to
    testify on behalf of the State of Arkansas supporting the
    Hunting Heritage and Environmental Legacy Preservation for
    Wildlife Act.
        Arkansas' position as the nation's top producing rice
    growing State, as well as its reputation as a premier waterfowl
    hunting destination in the country, gives us a unique
    perspective concerning proposed amendments to the Migratory
    Bird Treaty Act. Waterfowl conservation is one of the more
    successful examples of coordination between State and Federal
    authorities.
        It is this cooperation that has benefited wildlife in
    Arkansas and the people that enjoy that wildlife resource.
    Arkansas hunters consistently rank in the top three total duck
    harvest annually and lead the nation in mallard harvest each
    year. In a time when many States are experiencing declines in
    hunting participation, Arkansas duck hunter numbers have grown
    over the past decade, with approximately 100,000 individuals
    duck hunting in Arkansas each year, including Arkansas
    residents and visitors from all 50 States.
        Outdoors related recreation generates more than $4.9
    million daily in Arkansas. Waterfowl hunting in Arkansas
    generated $236.7 million in retail sales, supported 4,706 jobs,
    and provided $29.1 million and $23.9 million in State/local and
    Federal tax revenue, respectively. These significant economic
    contributions cannot be overlooked and provide much needed
    economic stability for our State.
        Arkansas is the largest rice growing State, producing half
    the nation's rice. Arkansas grows rice on more than 1.2 million
    acres each year from 40 counties. Arkansas rice contributes
    over $4 billion annually to the State's economy and employs
    more than 25,000 Arkansans.
        It is no secret that rice fields and ducks go hand in hand,
    but the amount of food available for migrating and wintering
    waterfowl in rice fields has been on the decline for several
    decades. Earlier harvests, more efficient harvesting, and fall
    tillage result in little waste grain left when most ducks
    arrive in mid-winter. The practice of encouraging a second or
    ``ratoon,'' crop of rice after harvest offers a viable tactic
    to increase foraging value of rice fields to help waterfowl
    meet food and energy demands required for migration, winter
    survival, and breeding. Although traditionally practiced in the
    Louisiana and Texas Gulf Coast, ratooning rice is now possible
    thanks to the development of those new varieties of rice which
    mature to harvestable conditions much faster. However, a change
    in interpretation of the baiting laws relative to ratoon rice
    crops several years ago resulted in uncertainty about the
    legality of flooding and waterfowl hunting over ratoon rice
    crops.
        Currently, the Federal interpretation on whether a field is
    baited or not includes a variety of possibilities which leads
    to confusion by both landowners/producers and hunters. Some
    criteria which are increasingly difficult to determine from a
    landowner perspective and measure from a law enforcement
    standpoint include how the crop plants got there, what has been
    done to the crop, and what will happen to it in the future.
        The proposed bill affords the opportunity for enhanced
    State-level coordination between the USDA Cooperative Extension
    Service State offices and State fish and wildlife agencies when
    defining normal agricultural practices based on crop type and
    conditions. It is an activity that must occur at the State
    level to be implemented correctly and successfully.
        This bill would codify clearer definitions around issues of
    baiting, afford the opportunity for waterfowl hunting over
    ratoon rice and other crops that have not been manipulated, and
    allow conservation partners to educate producers and hunters
    about the value of agriculture to wintering waterfowl without
    compromising the legal standing of those producers and hunters.
        The bill language reauthorizing the North American Wetlands
    Conservation Act at $50 million for the next 4 years is also a
    welcome addition. Competition for limited NAWCA funds has
    increased in recent years, and this proposed appropriation
    level would provide valuable, consistent funding for migratory
    bird habitat conservation in coming years. NAWCA is a long
    standing program that has been extremely effective in
    leveraging non-Federal funds to protect, restore, enhance, and
    manage wetland habitat for migratory birds and other wildlife.
        Mr. Chairman, once again, in closing, I would like to say I
    appreciate the opportunity to testify in support of this
    legislation. I believe the changes proposed are essential to
    the increased participation in hunting and shooting sports,
    which in turn provides the mechanism for increased conservation
    of our nation's wildlife resources. I would be happy to answer
    any questions you may have about my testimony today and look
    forward to continuing our work together to preserve our natural
    resources for the next generation.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Crow follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Crow, for
    traveling here from Arkansas and for your testimony today.
        I would like to next turn to Mr. Dale Hall, who is the CEO
    of Ducks Unlimited and the former Director of the United States
    Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Mr. Hall, thanks for joining us today.

             STATEMENT OF DALE HALL, CEO, DUCKS UNLIMITED,
          AND FORMER DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

        Mr. Hall. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
    Committee. Thank you very much for having me here.
        Mr. Chairman I request that my written comments be
    submitted to the record in their entirety.
        Senator Barrasso. And they certainly will. Thank you.
        Mr. Hall. Again, thank you for allowing me to be here to
    speak on behalf of Ducks Unlimited in support of the HELP Act.
    This bill is very important and has a lot of components in it
    that are important to all of us in the conservation community.
        NAWCA, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, is
    certainly a big part of that, and it is near and dear to Ducks
    Unlimited's heart because we work a great deal in restoring
    those wetlands out there. Over our 80-year history across the
    continent, we have now restored over 14 million acres of
    wetlands, and a lot of those acres have been restored with the
    help of NAWCA funding in the last 30 years. It has been a real
    pleasure to work with this Committee in the past, and hopefully
    we are able to provide the information necessary to get this
    bill across the finish line.
        NAWCA has accomplished success in all 50 States. The
    program has conserved more than 33.4 million acres in North
    America alone. NAWCA has conserved valuable wetlands across the
    continent, but we are still in need of additional work.
    Wetlands are still under threat across the continent, and while
    we have done a good job, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
    documented that wetland loss has dramatically accelerated by
    140 percent since 2004. This non-regulatory approach to working
    with the landowners to get the job done is, we believe, the
    most effective way to help conserve those wetlands and move
    things forward.
        NAWCA catalyzes conservation efforts and resource managers
    and partners from many sectors to use a variety of voluntary
    strategies to restore enhanced degraded habitat, as well as
    protect some of the remaining high quality habitat. Wildlife
    related recreation generates more than $100 billion in our
    economy each year, and we believe the ripple effect of that
    would take it up into several hundred billion dollars.
        In the Chairman's State of Wyoming, 140,116 hunters created
    nearly 5,000 jobs, while 302,758 anglers generated more than
    $476 million in retail sales. Eight NAWCA projects have been
    completed in Wyoming since the program's inception, and these
    projects have conserved 45,000 acres of critical wetland and
    wildlife habitat.
        The Ranking Member's home State of Delaware currently has
    10 NAWCA projects completed or underway, and these projects
    have conserved 10,800 acres of wetlands important to the State
    residents. Taking $6.6 million of Federal funding leveraged
    another $412 million in private and non-Federal funding in
    order to do these projects.
        These results are not unique and have been seen all over
    the country, with more than 5,600 NAWCA partners. I want to
    emphasize that again. More than 5,600 NAWCA partners working
    together in a volunteer fashion to get this work done.
        Our average at Ducks Unlimited in getting the matching
    funds--the law requires one to one match--our history is that
    we get an average of $3.2 of non-Federal funding for every $1
    of Federal funding. That is a pretty significant payoff for the
    American taxpayer.
        I would also like to emphasize the importance in this bill
    of the reauthorization of the National Fish and Wildlife
    Foundation. I have been, through my career, around to see NFWF
    grow and do all the wonderful things that it has been able to
    do, and we certainly support the reauthorization of the
    National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
        The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act, while only
    $6.5 million, is critical to working with the international
    community in getting things done.
        Finally, my colleague here will speak to the Chesapeake
    Bay, but it is a very important area. Like the Gulf Coast,
    where more than a million acres have been lost and partners are
    working together to try to restore those wetlands, the
    Chesapeake Bay is another true jewel for the American people.
        Again, I look forward to working with this Committee and
    answering any questions that I can to help get this bill
    approved. It is a good bill, it is a bipartisan bill, and it is
    a bill that is very much needed, so thank you very much for
    allowing me to be here.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much for your testimony,
    Mr. Hall. We are delighted to have you.
        Ms. Coble.

         STATEMENT OF KIM COBLE, VICE PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENTAL
       PROTECTION AND RESTORATION, THE CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION

        Ms. Coble. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and
    distinguished members of the Environment and Public Works
    Committee, I am Kim Coble, Vice President of Environmental
    Protection and Restoration for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
    On behalf of our board, staff, and members, thank you for
    inviting me to participate in today's hearing to discuss the
    HELP for Wildlife bill. And thank you to the bill cosponsors on
    the Committee, Senator Barrasso, Senator Cardin, Senator
    Capito, Senator Boozman, for your leadership in introducing the
    bill.
        At CBF we have over 240,000 members and are proud to count
    sportsmen and anglers among them. In fact, our founders were
    sportsmen and anglers, and we have found them to be great
    conservationists.
        Today we are sitting in the middle of the Chesapeake Bay
    watershed, which feeds the great estuary in our nation. The
    Chesapeake watershed spans six States, 64,000 square miles, and
    encompasses over 3,600 species of plants and animals. We are
    surrounded by astonishing lands and waters that our
    extraordinary life depends on. These resources not only provide
    substantial ecological value, but they also provide tremendous
    economic value.
        Data from the outdoors industry underscore how important
    these lands and waters are to sportsmen, anglers, and other
    outdoor lovers in the region. According to the Outdoors
    Industry Association, annual consumer spending on outdoor
    recreation is $644 billion. In Maryland, West Virginia, and
    Delaware alone, the 2012 outdoor recreation economy generated a
    total of 206,000 direct jobs, $21.1 billion in consumer
    spending, and provided $5.9 billion in wages and salaries.
        Given both the ecological and economic value of the
    Chesapeake ecosystem, it is easy to understand why the six Bay
    States have been working together under a formal voluntary
    agreement since 1983 to restore the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
    At that time, our States realized isolated local restoration
    work was not yielding the results that are needed, and a
    Federal partnership was critical to achieving these results.
        Today, our States operate under the 2014 Chesapeake Bay
    Agreement. The first three goals of this agreement are to
    protect, restore, and enhance fisheries and vital habitats, and
    achieve the water quality necessary to support these living
    resources. These three goals are at the heart of the programs
    put forward on the HELP for Wildlife Act.
        The Chesapeake Bay Foundation strongly supports the
    conservation programs included in this bill. They are important
    to the sportsmen and anglers in our region, and to restoring
    the Chesapeake Bay through the 2014 Bay Agreement. They work
    together to support both local interests and the larger
    restoration of the cross-State ecosystem.
        The Chesapeake Bay Program reauthorized by this bill exists
    to help Bay States achieve their goals in the Bay Agreement. It
    facilitates the Federal partnership that is critical for
    protecting and restoring the multi-State Chesapeake ecosystem.
    The Chesapeake Bay Program has allowed States to set science
    based goals that address the needs of the entire ecosystem, but
    are also tailored to local habitats and values. The majority of
    program funding is invested through matching grants in local
    projects that directly help protect and restore wildlife and
    fisheries in their habitats.
        This leads me to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation,
    or NFWF. NFWF administers some of the grants that are
    established by the Chesapeake Bay Program through their
    Chesapeake Stewardship Fund. These matching grants incentivize
    local watershed protection and stewardship, but they must also
    help the States meet their science based Bay Agreement goals.
        Take wetlands, for example. States have set a goal to
    restore 85,000 acres of wetlands and enhance an additional
    150,000 acres of wetlands by 2025. This Stewardship Fund can be
    invested in local stewardship projects that help reach that
    goal. In this way they achieve a win-win for local stakeholders
    and ecosystems.
        Both NAWCA and the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation
    Act provide critical investment and support for local
    stakeholder projects and habitat restorations. As a midpoint
    for the Atlantic flyway, the Chesapeake is a critical area for
    migratory birds and provides great systems for ecotourism and
    birders.
        Moving to fish habitat, codifying the National Fish Habitat
    Partnership will support locally led Atlantic Fish Habitat
    Partnership, which CBF is proud to be a member of, and the
    Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails network and Grants
    Program supports local initiatives to connect outdoor lovers
    with natural resources by expanding the physical access to the
    Bay.
        Programs included in this bill are very important to
    sportsmen and anglers in our region, and to the success of the
    2014 Bay Agreement. They work together to support both local
    interest in restoration needs, and for this reason the
    Chesapeake Bay Foundation strongly supports the conservation
    programs included in the HELP for Wildlife Act. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Coble follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Inhofe [presiding]. Thank you, Ms. Coble.
        Mr. Vucetich.

    STATEMENT OF JOHN VUCETICH, PH.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, SCHOOL
        OF FOREST RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE, MICHIGAN
                        TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

        Mr. Vucetich. Committee, thank you for this opportunity to
    testify. I appreciate it greatly. I am a professor of wildlife
    management from Michigan Technological University and have been
    studying wolf ecology and management for the past 20 years.
        My professional understanding of the HELP for Wildlife Act
    is that it is a Trojan horse and should be opposed or amended.
    It contains some important positive provisions, but its most
    important effect, I believe, would be to undermine the
    Endangered Species Act and to subvert wolf conservation.
        Wolves are understood by science to be valuable to our
    ecosystems. Most Americans also recognize that wildlife,
    including wolves, possess value in their own right, and should
    be treated fairly and with respect. Sociological evidence is
    clear that the public support for wolves and wolf conservation
    is strong. Public support for the Endangered Species Act is
    also high among both liberal and conservative constituents.
        Nevertheless, some citizens and special interests express
    concern that conserving wolves comes at too high a price. They
    raise disquiet about human safety, protecting livestock, and
    unfair competition with hunters for deer.
        I address each of those topics in detail in my written
    testimony, and here I can summarize the main findings.
        First, and with respect to human safety, wolves, very
    simply, are not a threat to human safety. This fact is robustly
    supported by scientists in academia and in government. False
    impressions to the contrary are fostered by those who fabricate
    stories, made up stories about wolves and the threats that they
    cause to humans.
        Second, and with respect to livestock, government
    statistics plainly indicate that wolves are not a threat to the
    livestock industry. Wolves can certainly be a concern and a
    problem for some individual livestock owners, and we have an
    important obligation to attend to those challenges.
    Fortunately, there are effective tools available to deal with
    those problems. They include non-lethal control and financial
    compensation. And when those programs need to be improved, they
    should be so improved.
        The economic impact on livestock is more than likely made
    up greatly by wolves' effect on over-abundant deer populations.
    Over-abundant deer in the Great Lakes region is detrimental to
    forestry, it is detrimental to crops, it is detrimental to
    private property and human safety. In each of the three States
    in the Great Lakes region, about a dozen people are killed
    every year when their automobiles strike deer, and injuries
    number in the many hundreds.
        Wolf delisting is also motivated by very few people with an
    intense interest to hunt wolves. Their voices have been greatly
    amplified by State agencies. Their expressed motivation is to
    promote deer hunting; however, the best scientific evidence
    indicates that hunter success is influenced by factors aside
    from wolves, and State agencies from the Great Lakes region
    report that deer hunting is quite successful both in terms of
    number of deer harvested and hunter satisfaction.
        So these concerns, human safety, livestock, and deer, they
    tend to be grossly exaggerated. And to the limited extent that
    the concerns are genuine, they are readily accommodated.
        The concerns about wolf hunting go further. First, plans
    for wolf hunting are at odds with sound science, especially in
    the State of Wisconsin, where hunting would be intense enough
    to impair the ecological value of wolves. This is one of the
    values that is explicitly expressed in the finding section of
    the ESA, a value to be protected.
        Another concern about hunting pertains to America's hunting
    heritage and the widely acknowledged decline in hunting
    participation. Because few Americans participate in hunting,
    the success, the future success of hunting in America depends
    on the attitudes of non-hunters. Most non-hunters support
    hunting when it is motivated by obtaining meat; and most
    Americans, most non-hunters, oppose hunting when it is
    motivated by hatred for the animal, when it is motivated by
    obtaining a trophy, especially by cruel methods such as traps
    and neck snares. These are the important motivations and
    methods of wolf hunting. Pressing for this kind of hunting will
    unquestionably harm America's hunting heritage in the whole.
        A few assert that wolves demonstrate shortcomings in the
    Endangered Species Act. However, with a 99 percent success
    rate, the Endangered Species Act has been extremely effective
    at preventing the extinction of listed species. Moreover, there
    is solid sociological evidence to indicate that most people do
    not believe the Endangered Species Act is overly protective.
    Finally, the Endangered Species Act allows for ample
    flexibility about how it is that agencies and their
    collaborators go about recovering species.
        What the ESA requires is better implementation, and
    implementation is impaired when Congress intervenes on
    decisions pertaining to individual species, it is impaired when
    Congress intervenes on judicial review of ESA decisions, and
    when Congress fails to provide adequate funding for the
    Endangered Species Act. Adequate implementation also depends on
    sound science playing its proper role, a condition that is not
    always realized.
        So this is a summary of the shortcomings as I see them for
    the HELP for Wildlife Act as they pertain, in particular, to
    the Endangered Species Act and wolf conservation.
        Thank you for the opportunity.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Vucetich follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Vucetich.
        Our Chairman will be coming back, Senator Barrasso. He is
    voting right now, and as soon as he gets back I am going to run
    and vote, so I am going to kill some time while we are waiting.
        Let me ask you a couple questions. First of all, confession
    is good for the soul, Dale. I didn't chew out, because I never
    do that, but I admonished my staff because they didn't let me
    introduce you. I always thought you were from Oklahoma. Then
    she looked it up, and you are not; you are from Tennessee; is
    that right?
        Well, anyway, you have come. This Partnership Act has
    really been great, and during the last couple administrations
    we have been able to successfully--in fact, when you were
    Director, you came out to Oklahoma; you talked to the
    landowners out there in western Oklahoma on our farmlands, our
    ranch lands. Somehow there is this notion that the landowners
    and the sportsmen somehow don't care that much about the land,
    about preserving it, about the environmental benefits, and we
    find this to be completely wrong.
        In fact, when you were out there, and Dan Ashe, I think it
    was, found the same thing, and the Government had learned from
    them how to preserve and take care of the conservation concerns
    and all that. Has that been your experience?
        Mr. Hall. Yes, sir, it sure has. In my 40 years or so
    working in conservation, and at least 30 of those directly with
    people that own the land, we need to understand something that
    is very basic. In this country, 65 to 70 percent of all fish
    and wildlife habitat is in private ownership, and it is there
    because they care. It is there because they have been good land
    stewards and because they have wanted to have as much diversity
    and health on their lands as possible.
        And I have never found a farmer or a rancher or a forest
    owner, or anyone else, that didn't truly love the land, and I
    think it is really unfortunate that anyone would make
    disparaging remarks such as these landowners don't care. That
    is simply not the truth. They do care, and they are America's
    first and foremost stewards of the resource.
        Senator Inhofe. Well, you know, I have heard that
    statement, and that is very disturbing.
        Ms. Coble, do you generally agree with that, that the
    landowners and sportsmen are first in line in trying to
    preserve the conservation?
        Ms. Coble. Yes, very much so. Our experience in working
    with farmers across the watershed have been that they are very
    open and willing and able to make improvements on their land
    and take care of it. As I mentioned in my testimony, we look at
    these landowners as the first conservationists, and it is a
    very strong ethic that we find throughout the watershed.
        Senator Inhofe. And I would say also, in your particular
    job, you depend on landowners, on the private sector to provide
    a lot of the funding and a lot of the resources necessary to
    have that conservation.
        Ms. Coble. The funding for the Bay restoration comes from
    many sources, and private landowners are one of those, yes.
        Senator Inhofe. Sure.
        Do you agree with that, Mr. Crow? How are things in
    Arkansas?
        Mr. Crow. Yes, sir. In Arkansas, 90 percent of our land is
    privately owned. We feel a tremendous responsibility to those
    landowners to help them understand how they play a role in
    conservation and working with them.
        One particular example that we have right now is our quail
    restoration effort. We are reaching out to landowners all
    across the State to develop some focal areas to restore our
    quail habitat back to its former glory. So we are getting a lot
    of support for that, and I am really encouraged, as we visit
    with landowners, the level of interest that they have, whether
    hunters or not, in participating in conservation.
        Senator Inhofe. Oklahoma and Arkansas, we are about half-
    hog in Oklahoma, and I have to tell you that while I am very
    familiar--three of my kids graduated from Arkansas, so we are
    very familiar with it--with the ducks and the geese
    particularly. However, we compete on almost an even basis in
    the north central part of Oklahoma. As you know, we have
    flyways there that are almost unmatched. But generally
    speaking, they are the ones that really do want to have all the
    pristine and protection of the economy.
        How about in Wyoming?
        Mr. Nesvik. Well, thank you, Senator. Wyoming is very
    similar to what some of the other witnesses have testified to
    here. About 50 percent of our State is private land. Simply
    put, we would not enjoy the abundance nor the diversity of
    wildlife species that we have in our State without private
    lands, and many times those private lands are some of the most
    productive lands and are oftentimes used by wildlife.
        And I guess, second, the second part of your question with
    regards to sportsmen, that is one of the values that we really
    value in Wyoming. Oftentimes, our best conservation efforts
    come as a consequence of sportsmen and landowners and others
    that love wildlife coming together to try to develop these
    projects, and nearly every single provision in this bill has
    some component of it that requires partnerships with private
    landowners and sportsmen.
        Senator Inhofe. And you know, of course, Senator Barrasso
    being the Chairman of this Committee, he has been very
    interested and the prime mover of this bill, which, by the way,
    we had some kind of a goof up because I was to be one of the
    original cosponsors, too. And he has now returned, so I am
    going to go vote.
        Senator Barrasso, welcome back.
        Senator Barrasso [presiding]. Well, thank you very much,
    Chairman Inhofe, for your continued incredible leadership of
    this Committee.
        As I mentioned to the others, there will be people coming
    in and out, but I would like to start, if I could, Brian, with
    you with questioning.
        Could you just talk about how important it is in terms of
    outdoor recreation for the State of Wyoming in terms of our
    economy, and then will this HELP for Wildlife Act improve these
    opportunities?
        Mr. Nesvik. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. The short answer
    to your question is absolutely. As you and many of the esteemed
    members of this panel here today are well aware, habitat is the
    lifeblood of wildlife and also wide open spaces which provide
    opportunities for a variety of different outdoor activities
    like fishing, camping, outdoor photography, hiking, horseback
    riding, boating, hunting, wildlife viewing.
        All of these activities--and there are many, many others--
    are a major part of our State's economy; they work
    symbiotically with the economy and are very important with
    regards to the provisions dealing with shooting ranges.
        In our State, as I think you are well aware, Governor Matt
    Mead has made providing shooting opportunities for all of its
    citizens a high priority. He strongly believes that outdoor
    activities connect people with the outdoors, and that is
    important, and that is an important part of our values and our
    culture in our State. So the provisions in this bill that
    encourage partnership with Federal land management agencies is
    very much in alignment with our economy and also with our
    culture.
        With regard to the provisions on allowing States to make
    decisions on the use of lead tackle, that is another very
    important component of our State's recreation and economy.
    Fishing is a big part of what a lot of our folks spend their
    extra time doing, so having that ability is also important.
        Then, last, I think the regulatory certainty that comes
    with the provisions on the migratory bird baiting is another
    component that is helpful for both landowners, farmers, and
    also hunters, alike.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        Mr. Hall, the HELP for Wildlife Act extends the
    authorization of appropriations for the North American Wetlands
    Conservation Act for 5 years. Your written testimony talks
    about the projects you mentioned in Wyoming that have been
    funded by the Act. You mentioned the protection of ocean lake
    wetlands in Wyoming, a $75,000 grant. I think you stated it
    ``provides important habitat to a variety of migratory birds,
    including several species of waterfowl, shorebirds, many other
    wetland-dependent species.''
        Could you provide more examples as to how the North
    American Wetland Conservation Act has been used to enhance
    wildlife habitat in other States?
        Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome that question
    because many people believe, unfortunately, that the North
    American Wetlands Conservation Act is the North American
    Waterfowl Conservation Act. It is the North American Wetlands
    Conservation Act. And when we do a project, and we do it at
    Ducks Unlimited alone, we average about 500 projects a year of
    one form or another. And by the Fish and Wildlife Service's
    estimate, those projects, each one benefits up to 900 species.
        I want to say that again. Between 700 and 900 species are
    benefited by these wetlands projects because, first of all, all
    wildlife needs water. So, if nothing else, it is a watering
    place for many of these. But these wetlands create the whole
    ecosystem, the food chain all the way from the micro
    invertebrates up through the top predators.
        So throughout the nation these kinds of projects are
    benefiting all the people. They purify water; they help to hold
    back flood damage by storing water. Along the coastlines
    wetlands are known to--if a hurricane is traveling over
    emergent marsh, for every 2.7 miles that it travels over
    emergent marsh, the storm surge is reduced by 1 foot.
        There are many, many benefits that come from creating these
    wetlands projects.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        Mr. Nesvik, May 1st, 2017, U.S. Fish and Wildlife issued a
    final ruling, again delisting the gray wolf in Wyoming under
    the Endangered Species Act pursuant to a mandate by the U.S.
    Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. This puts the
    management of the gray wolf where it should have been all
    along, under the control of Wyoming, not Washington.
        In the words of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ``The
    Court's decision recognizes the recovered status of gray wolves
    and affirms the Service's determination that the State's
    regulatory mechanisms are sufficient for conserving wolves
    under its authority.''
        Talk about what kind of actions you are going to take to
    protect the gray wolves in Wyoming under your authority and to
    maintain adequate numbers needed to maintain that healthy
    population.
        Mr. Nesvik. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. Excellent question. I
    will start by just saying very simply implementation of
    Wyoming's wolf management plan is the short answer to your
    question. Our Governor, our elected legislature, our Wyoming
    Game and Fish Commission, all of our elected leaders in the
    State and appointed leaders have pledged support and commitment
    to manage for healthy and viable populations of wolves in our
    State into the future.
        As I have stated in my testimony, during those brief 2
    years when we did have the opportunity to manage wolves, we did
    it with a tremendous track record; we did it informed by
    science in an adaptive manner and with the public involved, the
    public for whose wildlife we manage as participants.
    Specifically, our plan calls for management of wolves and the
    number of breeding pairs above the minimum requirements of the
    Fish and Wildlife Service; it requires an adaptive approach,
    meaning that as the science changes, conditions on the ground
    change, so does the management; it requires focused monitoring
    through the use of telemetry collars and classification
    flights. When Wyoming had this authority before, we collared
    over 70 wolves to make sure that we were very closely
    monitoring the status of the population.
        Our plan requires the monitoring of genetic interchange; it
    requires us to provide and facilitate a zone, a flex zone where
    wolves can move back and forth between subpopulations; it calls
    for tightly regulated hunting seasons; it requires, just like
    we do with every other species, to provide law enforcement and
    to ensure that these regulations related to wolf management are
    enforced; and it also requires citizen involvement.
        So I think with all of those things, proven track record,
    commitments by elected leaders, I think demonstrates clearly
    that we are ready again, for the third time, to take over wolf
    management and do an excellent job at it.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        Senator Boozman.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Director Crow, under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, there
    are substantial fines for those who bait and hunt migratory
    birds over presently undefined baited areas. The problem is
    that farming practices carried out to produce a marketable crop
    in Arkansas, and recommended by the applicable State agency
    under the Department of Agriculture, are often in conflict with
    the baiting prohibition.
        As head of the Arkansas State wildlife agency, can you
    provide this Committee with your observations on the confusion
    that has resulted from the contradiction? Do you believe
    section 3 of the HELP for Wildlife Act would resolve this
    situation? Also, it is not only the farmers, but it is the
    hunters that certainly don't want to put their reputation on
    the line, their freedom. So, again, could you comment on that?
        Mr. Crow. Yes, sir, Senator Boozman. We actually had a
    situation in 2012, we had a drought that resulted in an early
    harvest of a lot of our rice crops, and then an early summer
    rain that produced kind of an unintended ratoon rice crop. Our
    local cooperative extension service advised our producers to
    either roll or plow those crops and to return those nutrients
    to the soil, which would clearly fall within the parameters of
    normal agricultural practice. However, the interpretation from
    the Fish and Wildlife Service maintained that those fields
    would be baited and that hunters would not be allowed to hunt
    waterfowl over them.
        This created a lot of confusion, and it caused a lot of
    difficulties for our producers and our farmers. I do believe
    that section 3 will be very helpful in terms of consistency and
    clarification for our hunters and for our producers and
    landowners. I think the biggest component of that is the local
    input; it is the consideration, what is the normal agricultural
    practice being pushed out at that State level, and I think that
    would be very helpful not only for our producers, but for our
    hunters.
        Senator Boozman. In your testimony, one of the things that
    you highlighted was the importance of enhanced State level
    coordination between USDA and the cooperative extension service
    and State agencies. Why do you feel that enhanced State level
    coordination is so important when defining normal agricultural
    practices?
        Mr. Crow. I believe that it is critically important because
    it is not a one size fits all type of determination. I mean,
    what is normal practice in McCurtain County, Oklahoma may not
    be the same as in Lee County, Arkansas, or Bossier Parish,
    Louisiana. There is a divergence of practices that are
    conducted at the local level.
        Hunting and fishing is a regulated activity, and there are
    a lot of regulations, and I think it is incumbent upon
    conservation organizations to make sure that those that have
    regulatory responsibilities to make sure that those regulations
    are not confusing, they are not difficult for our hunters to
    understand, or for our producers or for landowners.
        These are potential barriers for participation in hunting
    activities, and I think at a time in our nation when we
    struggle to encourage people to participate in conservation
    through hunting, that ambiguous and difficult regulations can
    be a barrier to that. So I think it is extremely important.
        Senator Boozman. Let's talk a little bit about NAWCA.
    Currently, Arkansas has 17 completed or underway projects. Our
    State has been able to use $11.7 million in NAWCA funding,
    along with another $41.7 million in partner contributions, to
    conserve a total of 77,089 acres of wildlife habitat. Would
    Arkansas be able to conserve that much wildlife without the
    NAWCA program?
        Mr. Crow. No, sir. There would be no way that we could
    maintain that level of work absent the assistance that comes to
    us through the NAWCA program. The beauty of this program is it
    is private landowner friendly, it is non-regulatory, and it is
    an incentive based program.
        I think it is interesting to note, and worthy to note, that
    the contribution, the in kind contributions almost triple,
    through whether it be our agency or organizations like Ducks
    Unlimited that contribute to these programs is absolutely
    essential for what we are doing in wetland conservation to have
    this program.
        Senator Boozman. So really great public-private
    partnerships.
        Mr. Crow. Absolutely.
        Senator Boozman. Very good.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        Senator Inhofe.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you. I know I asked quite a few
    questions while we were waiting for our Chairman to get back
    from voting, but I have a couple more.
        By the way, in your absence, I told Mr. Crow about our
    competition between Arkansas and Oklahoma in our hunting and
    fishing wildlife, and what I was starting to say when Senator
    Barrasso came back in, after I was praising him for what he has
    done with this bill, I just said they also have another Senator
    there, and he is really big into fish and wildlife. In fact,
    the criticism that we get from his staff is that he goes off to
    commitments around the State, he keeps his fly rod in his
    trunk, and if he gets over a stream, he will stop there and
    fish for 2 or 3 hours and completely miss his meeting. So he is
    another one who is interested in this.
        I had just a couple questions.
        Mr. Vucetich, you had made a couple comments. One was that
    fewer Americans are hunting now. I don't know where you get
    that. Was Oklahoma included in that study?
        Mr. Vucetich. No, this is understood to occur throughout
    the nation, and in particular in the Midwest, where my comments
    were mostly focused on. But I don't believe there is much
    dispute about the notion that participation in hunting is
    generally on the decline.
        Senator Inhofe. Come to Oklahoma; you may find that is not
    the case.
        You did make a statement, talking about the wolf, that they
    are not treated fairly and with respect. I was writing down
    what you said.
        I would like to kind of get another view on that, if you
    would have one, Mr. Nesvik.
        Mr. Nesvik. Thank you, Senator. I guess I would
    respectfully disagree with that statement. I don't believe that
    that is the case. Certainly, in my State and in my workings
    with other States in the West, I don't believe that that is the
    case. I think that the management plans and the attitudes and
    the participation by sportsmen in the past have reflected this
    is just another opportunity for another species.
        We are very fortunate to have a diversity and abundance of
    species in our State. It is another species of wildlife that
    people have an opportunity to participate in their management,
    whether that be through active management or through being able
    to have wildlife viewing opportunities. So I don't agree with
    that statement.
        Senator Inhofe. All right, well, those are the only two
    questions I had.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
        Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. Again, we appreciate your presence, your
    testimony, and your willingness to respond to our questions.
    There are a number of other committees that are meeting right
    now, and I think there are probably hearings that maybe
    normally would be in the afternoon have been moved to the
    morning. So don't view the presence or the absence of members
    here as not caring a great deal about these issues.
        I think, Mr. Crow, I heard during the introduction or your
    comments, I think the Marine Corps was mentioned. Is that true?
        Mr. Crow. Yes, sir, that is correct.
        Senator Carper. And your name was linked to the term Marine
    Corps. What is the connection, sergeant major?
        Mr. Crow. I am sorry?
        Senator Carper. What is the connection with you and the
    Marine Corps?
        Mr. Crow. I retired from the Marine Corps in 2007.
        Senator Carper. And I just want to thank you.
        Mr. Crow. Yes, sir.
        Senator Carper. And say semper fi.
        Mr. Crow. Thank you, as well.
        Senator Carper. OK, Navy salutes Marine Corps. Different
    uniforms, same team.
        Let me just start with John Vucetich. Does anyone ever
    mispronounce your name?
        Mr. Vucetich. I am pretty easy about how it is pronounced,
    so, no.
        Senator Carper. I expect a lot of people call you John.
        Mr. Vucetich. Yes.
        Senator Carper. We have heard today that some stakeholders
    and wildlife managers are frustrated with the lengthy process
    associated with recovering and delisting the gray wolf. In your
    view, is the process too long? And do you think that a longer
    road to recovery within the bounds of the Endangered Species
    Act might be appropriate?
        Mr. Vucetich. When we think about how long it has taken to
    come this far with wolves, over the last 15 years they have
    been kind of center stage, especially for the Fish and Wildlife
    Service, I think it is important to keep in mind two issues.
    One is that wolves are symbols of nature for many Americans;
    they are symbols of all of the things that many of us love
    about nature, and they are symbols for all the things that many
    of us hate about nature. So what that means is that when we
    have conversations about wolves, we are having conversations
    about our relationship with nature on the whole.
        Sometimes that is infused with a distracting amount of
    emotion. Nevertheless, they are a proxy for our attitudes
    overall. That, I think, demands that we be cautious and take
    the time necessary to go through this, because our
    understanding of our relationship with nature is not something
    that we will just settle on some day and be done discussing; it
    is an ongoing sort of thing.
        To be a little bit more specific, many of the issues
    pertaining to wolves in the Endangered Species Act has to do
    with the legal aspect of the definition of significant portion
    of range. Without going into the legal details of it, what it
    amounts to is that we, as an American people, still don't know
    what it means to be an endangered species.
        How much does a species have to be impaired by us humans
    for us to say that is no longer good enough? That is what is at
    the heart of the issue about wolves with the Endangered Species
    Act. It is an extremely basic question that affects our
    understanding of the Endangered Species Act overall. It is a
    very difficult question.
        Fish and Wildlife Service has had a very hard time trying
    to answer it, in part because it is a hard question. What I
    think they need from Congress is encouragement and leadership
    on answering it. And when delisting riders, like the one we are
    speaking about today, are accompanied with a bill that doesn't
    help the Fish and Wildlife Service focus on solving the
    problem, it kind of gets them off the hook.
        Senator Carper. Good. Thank you.
        A question for Kim Coble. We applaud your efforts and those
    of others who have worked with you to facilitate and support
    the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay to good health, but would
    we be able to restore, protect, preserve the Bay if the
    Chesapeake Bay program did not exist? Specifically, would the
    Bayside States of Maryland and Virginia be able to entice more
    distant States like Delaware, like Pennsylvania, like West
    Virginia and New York to reduce the flow of pollutants from
    their States and otherwise help them to protect the Chesapeake
    from upstream threats?
        Ms. Coble. Thank you, Senator Carper. No. The Federal
    partnership is critical to the Bay restoration effort, and that
    has been borne out over decades of work. When you have six
    States, you have DC, you have many different governments,
    different funding programs, different perspective, different
    politics. To have an umbrella of the Federal partnership allows
    for better coordination, it allows for better dialogue, it
    allows for better science, and it allows for a better outcome
    for the whole effort.
        Senator Carper. All right. I think you may have begun to
    answer this question, but how does this program, the Chesapeake
    Bay program, overcome the difficulties that downstream States
    have in working with their upstream counterparts?
        Ms. Coble. It is an interesting question about the
    relationship of downstream versus upstream, because we are all
    part of the watershed. So New York is the furthest State
    upstream than Pennsylvania. Each State has a role to play in
    the Bay clean up in that all their rivers and streams that feed
    it are part of it. So when Pennsylvania invests dollars and
    effort to improve their own water quality, they are also
    improving the health of the Bay.
        Now, Maryland and Virginia, being the downstream States,
    obviously want to ensure that Pennsylvania does everything it
    can, and this is again where the Federal partnership becomes
    key. Virginia and Maryland can work much more closely in
    assuring Pennsylvania has resources it needs, has the political
    will it needs to get the job done because the Federal partners
    are at the table as well.
        Senator Carper. OK, thanks so much.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Gillibrand.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
    that the Committee is holding this hearing to scrutinize the
    HELP for Wildlife Act. While this bill includes several
    important beneficial conservation provisions that I support, I
    am concerned about other parts of the bill that would have some
    very negative impacts on the Endangered Species Act and the
    regulation of toxic chemicals. I am concerned that the TSCA
    provision in section 9 of this bill is a solution in search of
    a problem that would tie the hands of the EPA from ever
    regulating the components of sports fishing equipment.
        This provision is unnecessary and does nothing to change
    the status quo for recreational fishermen. The EPA is not
    currently seeking to regulate sports fishing equipment under
    TSCA at the Federal level. However, it would be shortsighted
    for us to prevent future TSCA regulation permanently should the
    science warrant a change in the future.
        I am also concerned that this bill would legislate a
    delisting of gray wolves from the Endangered Species Act and
    prevent judicial review. Listing decisions should be based on
    science, and not politics.
        On that topic, I would like to ask the witnesses a few
    questions.
        Mr. Nesvik, you have raised concerns about livestock
    populations that have been impacted, wolf depredation. On
    average, how many cattle and sheep are killed by wolves each
    year in Wyoming?
        Mr. Nesvik. Thank you, Senator. The number of cattle and
    sheep that are killed annually that is attributed to wolf
    depredation fluctuates widely. Last year was a record year, and
    I can get back to you with specific numbers, but I can tell you
    it was in the hundreds, over 200 cattle that were attributed to
    wolf depredations.
        Senator Gillibrand. And how does that number compare to
    other predators like coyotes, mountain lions, and bears?
        Mr. Nesvik. So in Wyoming we also investigate and
    compensate landowners who have damages that are a consequence
    of grizzly bears, mountain lions, and black bears. And in
    total, of all of the different species that cause damage across
    our State, not only to cattle or sheep, but also to standing
    crops or to agricultural operations, wolves account for about
    37 percent of that total amount of damage to livestock
    producers and also farmers.
        Senator Gillibrand. Dr. Vucetich, is wolf delisting
    necessary to protect livestock from wolf attacks, and are there
    effective methods for protecting livestock that can be used by
    farmers, ranchers, and government agencies today?
        Mr. Vucetich. Yes, there are effective methods for
    protecting livestock. They include non-lethal control, there
    would be some instances where lethal control is appropriate,
    and also for financial compensation for these losses are
    appropriate.
        Senator Gillibrand. For Ms. Coble, as you know, New York
    State is part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and New York
    State receives approximately $2.7 million through the
    Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program for conservation projects.
    What types of projects are funded in New York to conserve the
    Chesapeake Bay, and is there more that can be done to help New
    York meet its conservation goals for the Chesapeake Bay?
        Ms. Coble. Thank you, Senator. Generally speaking, New York
    is one of the six States that feed into the Chesapeake Bay
    watershed and therefore have goals to reduce the pollution
    coming down the Susquehanna from New York. The resources for
    New York, I can get you the specifics from it, but there are
    pollution reducing programs specifically for agricultural
    purposes, agricultural farms, as well as for stormwater runoff.
    So I don't have the dollar figures right handy.
        Senator Gillibrand. Will you submit that for the record?
        Ms. Coble. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you all for being here today, and
    thank you for testifying.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you so very much, Senator
    Gillibrand.
        Senator Booker.
        Senator Booker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Some of my comments want to pick up where Senator
    Gillibrand was, but as we consider this bill, what is
    astonishing to me is that we just have to acknowledge that we
    are in the midst of a global extinction crisis on the planet
    Earth of stunning proportion. It is estimated that we have now
    lost more than half of all wildlife on the planet Earth in the
    last five decades, and the fact that we are not talking about
    this in the context of the severity of this mass extinction
    that we are under right now is chilling to me. This should be
    an issue for Congress, and it should be an issue for public.
        One in six species on the planet Earth are threatened with
    extinction in this century alone, and that is why the
    Endangered Species act, which has saved 99 percent of the
    wildlife under its protection from extinction, is such an
    incredibly important law, and it is why the ESA decisions must
    be based on science, without interference from Congress.
        So, Mr. Vucetich, I just want to focus some questions on
    you, if I may, in follow up to Senator Gillibrand.
        So section 7 of the bill that we are discussing would
    delist gray wolves in the western Lakes for endangered species,
    and you know, obviously, in 2014 the District Court here in
    Washington struck down the exact same efforts to delist the
    wolves. As you know, wolves in the United States currently
    inhabit only 15 percent of their historic range. So we have
    savagely--by 85 percent--cut their range.
        You specifically have written a lot of the scholarly
    literature on the Endangered Species Act, so, based on your
    expertise, can you just explain whether the western Great Lakes
    wolves have met the ESA's requirements for delisting?
        Mr. Vucetich. No, they haven't, and the main reason is
    because, as you mentioned, wolves in the lower 48 have only
    been recovered to 15 percent of their former range, and the
    Endangered Species Act uses language that is shrouded in this
    phase ``significant portion of range.''
        What the courts have indicated in about a dozen court cases
    over about a 10-year period is that that phrase means that the
    Endangered Species Act says that recovery requires the species
    be relatively widely distributed throughout its former range.
        There are some difficulties and challenges in understanding
    exactly what ``widely distributed'' means, but there doesn't
    seem to be much dispute that 15 percent doesn't qualify. That
    is what the great concern is with these court cases. That is
    why every time the Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to delist
    under our meager conditions for wolves, the courts have struck
    them down, because it violates that particular principle of the
    Endangered Species Act.
        Senator Booker. Thank you very much. And we do know the
    data about the damage to livestock. This is not an issue at
    question. Right now, less than one-half of 1 percent of
    livestock losses are attributable to wolves. Less than one-half
    of 1 percent. Concerns, nevertheless, have been raised about
    their negative economic impacts.
        Is there a way to think about the economic impacts of
    wolves that considers the broader ecological benefits that
    wolves provide and the sort of cost-benefit analysis?
        Mr. Vucetich. Yes, yes, absolutely. As you mentioned, there
    is a great deal of focus on the negative impact of wolves
    economically, and it is mostly focused on livestock. To cite
    two particular examples, in Wisconsin and Minnesota, they spend
    in the neighborhood of $150,000 or $200,000 a year compensating
    for that. Those losses absolutely need to be weighed against
    the benefit of wolves. And I am talking about relatively hard
    core economic benefits.
        One of the great troubles in the Great Lakes are over-
    abundant deer populations. Over-abundant deer are damaging to
    forestry. In particular, when there are too many deer, hemlock
    can't grow, white pine can't grow, several other species. If
    wolves are allowed to do what they do, they would better over-
    abundant deer populations and it would give a very different
    impression of the economic cost.
        There is also a human life issue, too, because, again,
    about a dozen people are killed a year in each of these States
    when their cars hit deer. So there is a sense of maybe putting
    human life in front of livestock, if you would expand it that
    way.
        Senator Booker. Absolutely. So just in a sheer balance
    sheet analysis to taxpayers around the United States of
    America, the ESA makes economic sense.
        But let's continue for a second. If the bill written
    becomes law, Great Lakes wolves would lose all of their Federal
    protections, and management of wolves would be turned over to
    the States. Between 2012 and 2014 Great Lakes wolves enjoyed
    those protections. But during the time State wildlife managers
    permitted some incredibly cruel methods to kill hundreds of
    wolves, and these include savage cable neck snares; steel jawed
    leg hold traps, which affect other wildlife, even our pets,
    these savage things that I have worked in a bipartisan way to
    try to ban from our national wildlife refuges; pack trailing of
    hounds.
        So, in your opinion, do you think these methods are
    considered as ``fair chase'' wolf hunting methods?
        Mr. Vucetich. No, they are not fair. One of the things that
    I think is important about wildlife management, about hunting
    programs in particular, is that we don't just simply hunt
    things; we hunt things for a reason, and the reason has to be a
    good reason, and then the methods have to be appropriate along
    with that. And there is pretty good reason to think that a lot
    of wolf hunting is motivated by hatred for wolves, and never in
    our American hunting heritage have we ever hunted something
    because we hated it. This is the first time in our history that
    we have decided to do that.
        The other thing, just one more example, again, the example
    in Michigan, the plan for hunting wolves was all focused on
    reducing livestock depredations. It is important to reduce
    livestock depredations, but hunting is an absolutely silly way
    to do it; it doesn't make any sense with the science. So, once
    again we are hunting and killing wolves for reasons that
    doesn't make sense, and in that sense it is not fair or
    respectful to wolves.
        Senator Booker. I am just going to push one final question.
    Arguments in favor of wolf conservation tend to focus
    exclusively on the benefits that wolves provide to humans, and
    whether those benefits outweigh any negative impacts on us.
    This strikes me as sort of a limited view. So much of this
    analysis is done on a limited view, including that economic
    analysis we mentioned before.
        So my final question is, is there a broader perspective
    that we should be considering when discussing wolf conservation
    and management that takes into account how residents of the
    Great Lakes States and other public folks perceive wolves?
        Mr. Vucetich. Absolutely. There is good sociological
    evidence that indicates something like 80 to 90 percent of
    Americans say that wildlife have value beyond their economic
    value and beyond any value to humans. In other words, 80 to 90
    percent of Americans believe that wildlife, including wolves,
    have value for its own sake. This is across demographic
    categories; men, women, wealthy people, middle class people,
    liberals, conservatives. It is a very, very widespread belief.
        When you believe that something has value in its own right,
    that is the trigger for saying that it needs to be treated
    fairly and with respect, and I cited just a moment ago some
    important examples how wolves are not treated that way.
        Senator Booker. Sir, thank you very much for your
    testimony, even though you have an over-abundance of hair.
        Mr. Chairman, can I, for the record----
        Senator Barrasso. Be added as a cosponsor, did you say?
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Booker. Cosponsor of the requirement that all
    witnesses shave their heads, I would be very happy for that.
    This guy makes me feel really insecure.
        Mr. Vucetich. We can find a compromise, maybe.
        Senator Booker. OK. We can meet midway.
        But there is a book that I did with my Booker Book Club,
    sir, which I think you might be a member of, I am not sure. We
    did a book called The Sixth Extinction by Elizabeth Kolbert. It
    is a devastating book that talks about the mass extinction
    going on in the United States of America. May I enter that book
    into the record?
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
        Senator Booker. Thank you very much.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        [The referenced information is available in Committee
    files.]
        Senator Barrasso. Mr. Nesvik, you know what is interesting?
    In your written testimony you discuss the North American
    Wetlands Conservation Act, the reauthorization that is in this
    HELP for Wildlife Act, and you make a point that about one-
    third of all endangered species are wetlands related species.
    So is it safe to say that reauthorization of this program in
    this bill is actually going to help protect many endangered
    species? And can you maybe elaborate on that a little bit on
    that?
        Mr. Nesvik. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. I think that one of
    the important tenets of wildlife conservation is the fact that
    water is absolutely important to all living things on the
    planet. I think that is understood by most. But healthy
    wetlands are an indicator of overall ecosystem health, and Mr.
    Hall did an excellent job of talking about some of the details
    that really give rise to that analysis and that conclusion.
        There are, as I stated in my testimony and as you just
    reiterated, a wide, wide range of endangered species that are
    what we call wetland obligates, species like the Kendall Warm
    Springs dace. That is a species that is only found in one
    particular spot in the Upper Green River Basin of Wyoming, and
    that is where we conducted a $1 million NAWCA project,
    specifically in that particular area.
        The Wyoming toad is another wetland obligate endangered
    species that relies heavily on wetlands, to name a couple
    Wyoming species.
        Other species include the whooping crane, the southwestern
    willow flycatcher, piping plover, least tern, Yuma clapper rail
    in the southwest, the desert pupfish. I bet you have never
    heard of that one, Mr. Chairman. And a variety of plants as
    well, just to name a very few.
        Senator Barrasso. Great. Thank you very much.
        Senator Cardin.
        Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, first of all, thank you for
    keeping the hearing open, as I was tardy getting back from the
    floor. I appreciate that. I very much appreciate your
    leadership on this bill, as I said as I was introducing Kim
    Coble.
        This bill is important for many reasons, and I appreciate
    each of the witnesses' testimony as to various parts of it. I
    am obviously very much interested in the impact that this
    legislation has on the Chesapeake Bay, and I say that because
    we have heard from the OMB director that it is important to
    have authorized programs, Mr. Chairman. I agree with that. We
    are the authorizing Committee. It is important for us to speak.
        And we have been funding the Chesapeake Bay effort with
    that authorization for many, many years, and under the
    Chairman's leadership we now have the opportunity to have an
    authorized program, which gives it a much stronger standing. It
    has had strong standing in Congress; it has been supported in
    Congress. But having authorization puts it in a much stronger
    position.
        We have also had challenges, and this is not alone, in
    regards to attacks on continuation of the funding of the
    program. And this puts us in a much stronger position when you
    have an authorization.
        What was particularly important--and Kim, you have
    commented about this--the Chesapeake Bay program is a modest
    program as far as Federal funds, $73 million. It is a
    relatively small amount of the total resources that goes into
    cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay. The largest amount of
    resources, by the way, come from local governments, State
    governments, more so than the Federal Government, just so we
    understand that the taxpayer support is more local than it is
    Federal. And we take pride in that.
        But the Federal partnerships are very important, and the
    Chesapeake Bay program provides the glue, as Kim testified, to
    make sure that we are living up to everyone's obligations. It
    really keeps all the stakeholders focused that there is an
    overseer that makes sure that we do what we say we are going to
    do, and that provides the operations and the grants to make
    sure that that in fact takes place.
        There are many parts to the Chesapeake Bay program. Several
    are included in this legislation. We have already talked about
    the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation; we have talked about
    the National Fish Habitat partnership, the National American
    Wetlands Conservation Act, the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and
    Watertrails Network and Grant programs, all those feed in to
    the support of the Chesapeake Bay. And I could mention the
    Revolving Fund for wastewater and clean water, which very much
    fits into it. I could mention the farm bill with the Regional
    Conservation Partnership Program.
        So there are a lot of pieces that fit into the Chesapeake
    Bay, and I say that because it is the largest estuary in our
    hemisphere; it has been declared by Presidents as a national
    treasure. Kim mentioned the number of species that are included
    in the Bay, the economic impact of the Bay, the quality of
    life, the iconic nature, that so many people live in the
    watershed. Why? Because they love the Chesapeake Bay, and it
    grows every year, presenting additional challenges.
        So today's hearing on many parts of the Chesapeake Bay
    program is really a very, very important ingredient on the
    continued efforts that have been made now for close to 40
    years, going back to Harry Hughes as Governor of Maryland when
    I was in the State legislature.
        So, Kim, I just want to give you one last chance to sort of
    comment as to the importance of the Chesapeake Bay program
    itself, that $73 million that is currently being appropriated
    and which here is authorized at $90 million, how important that
    is to the overall effort.
        Ms. Coble. Thank you, Senator Cardin, and also, thank you
    for your leadership for decades on the Bay. I am not sure we
    would be where we are today without you, so thank you.
        Senator Cardin. I just would point out Senator Mathias
    started the efforts, the great Republican Senator from
    Maryland; Senator Sarbanes continued that effort, and I have
    his seat. Of course, my colleague, Senator Mikulski, has been a
    great champion; and on the other side of the aisle John
    Sarbanes has been one of our great leaders. But I thank you for
    those comments.
        Ms. Coble. Probably the best point I can make regarding
    this is to actually talk about the health of the Bay, and what
    we have seen is that it is recovering. I never really thought
    that, really, in my career I would see the improvement in water
    quality, the improvement in habitat, and the improvement in the
    industries that are supported by it that we have seen over the
    last couple of years. Underwater grasses are rebounding; the
    famous blue crab is coming back; oysters are doing better;
    striped bass are coming back.
        Every other year we do a State of the Bay Report where we
    give numeric indicators. We gave the highest rating to the
    health of the Bay this last year that we have ever give, at 34,
    and it is very exciting to see that this Chesapeake Bay
    program, the Bay Agreement that is governing the clean up and
    the restoration of our land, is working.
        It is a true sign of success, and it is a model, I think,
    for across the country. It will not work without Federal
    leadership. It will not work without the Chesapeake Bay program
    and the other programs in this bill. And as you said, Senator
    Cardin, it is a modest amount, but it is a critical amount.
    That oversight and umbrella is the glue that holds the whole
    thing together. So it is with great support for those programs
    in this bill that we are here to testify in support of it.
        Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, let me say in conclusion I
    also want to mention support for the neotropical bird, which
    includes, as I am sure the Chairman knows, the Baltimore
    Oriole, which is a neotropical bird. And we love the Baltimore
    Orioles, and they won last night, Mr. Carper, 12 to 1. Just
    want you to know.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Barrasso. Let the record reflect. We would also
    like to introduce for the record, ask unanimous consent for a
    number of different submissions of articles, letters, and
    testimonies in support of the legislation. Without objection.
        Thank you.
        [The referenced information appears earlier in the printed
    hearing.]
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. As Senator Cardin prepares to leave, let me
    just point out I am just grateful that his moment for victory
    on behalf of his Orioles did not occur at the expense of my
    Detroit Tigers. To be continued.
        Ms. Coble, one thing about your testimony that strikes me
    is that the far broader purpose of the Chesapeake Bay program
    to address issues that are also highly relevant in this bill
    before us, restoration, preservation of critical habitats,
    notably, wetlands and other fishery and wildlife habitat.
        I just want to take maybe a minute, if you will, to
    elaborate on this broader mission of the program beyond water
    quality and talk about the partnerships that broader mission
    entails among Federal agencies, among States, nonprofits and
    business. Who is involved in all these issues in all these
    efforts?
        Ms. Coble. Thank you, Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. Briefly, if you would.
        Ms. Coble. We have often said what happens on the land has
    more impact than what is happening in the water, because the
    Chesapeake Bay watershed landmass is so enormous, 64,000 square
    miles. The habitat that is within that watershed is integral.
    All my colleagues at the table here have talked about the
    importance and interplay between the animals, the species that
    live in it and the quality of that; the need for that habitat;
    the bird flyway on the Delmarva peninsula is critical; the
    wetlands serving it. So all of those habitats are important for
    our wildlife, important for anglers and sportsmen, and
    important for water quality.
        Senator Carper. All right, thanks.
        I was privileged to be Governor of our State from 1993 to
    2001, and it was at a time when I think you said there was a
    score, if you will, for the restoration of the Bay gave a 34,
    said it is the best it has been for quite a while. From 1993 to
    2001 the prospect was not so encouraging.
        One of the things that we found out, what we are doing in
    Delaware, we raise a lot of chickens in my State, your State
    too, but in Sussex County, Delaware, we raise more chickens
    than any county in America, and they create a lot of chicken
    manure.
        What we were doing is stacking up the chicken manure,
    cleaning our houses and stacking it up in farm fields, and
    waiting until somewhere down the line to be able to use it as a
    fertilizer for the nitrogen and phosphorous content. And the
    rains would come, wash the nutrients into ditches and creeks
    and streams, and eventually rivers and eventually into the
    Chesapeake Bay.
        I remember gathering a lot of farmers in my State together
    in southern Delaware and some folks from environmental
    communities, from the Department of Natural Resources,
    Environmental Control, including the fellow sitting right
    behind me, Christophe Tulou; he used to be our secretary. We
    talked about the Golden Rule, and I said to the farmers, how
    would you feel, how would we feel if folks over in Maryland
    were somehow polluting whether it is the air or the water that
    comes over and diminishes our ability to make a living? How
    would we feel about that? And we all agreed that would not be a
    good thing.
        And we tried to figure out how to actually be guided by the
    Golden Rule, we know about love thy neighbor. We came up with
    this Nutrient Management Commission. It was farmer led, and the
    final result was every farm where they had poultry litter and
    they spread the nutrients on farm fields, they had to have a
    nutrient plan and how to do that. They had to be essentially
    trained to do that and certified to do that.
        And we have had that in place now for almost 20 years, and
    it has worked. It has worked. Again, it involved the efforts of
    environmentalists and our regulatory agency in the State, but
    it was really the farmers, who are and can be some of our best
    environmentalists, who were right there at the vanguard. And I
    am very, very proud of what we have accomplished, and at the
    end of the day, to be a much better neighbor to Maryland, and
    we have been for a long, long time.
        We applaud all of you here today, whether you served in the
    Army, the Marines or not, we are grateful for your service and
    sharing your information with us, and I look forward to working
    with you going forward. Thank you so much.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you so much, Senator Carper.
        Just before I bring this to a close, Brian, a quick
    question or two. My recollection is the introduction of wolves
    into Yellowstone, Bruce Babbitt, Bill Clinton was President.
    The number was like 30, and the idea was to get to 100 as a
    stable number, and we have been there for over 15 years.
        My recollection in this Committee, Dan Ashe, who was
    President Obama's head of Fish and Wildlife, said Wyoming has
    done everything that we have asked them to do; they are a
    stable population. And I have read somewhere that the number of
    wolves that have expanded beyond Yellowstone, where they were
    ``supposed to stay,'' is now 1,700 in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming.
    You are seeing them in Oregon, California. Are those roughly
    the accurate numbers, so the wolves have kind of expanded
    significantly?
        Mr. Nesvik. Mr. Chairman, your numbers are approximate, and
    they are correct. Idaho hasn't actually done a population
    estimate in a couple years, but Montana and Wyoming have, and
    you are exactly right. The wolf population in the northern
    Rocky Mountains have done quite well and have expanded.
        Senator Barrasso. And then take a look at this map. We talk
    about the traditional area of habitat for the gray wolf, which
    is in gray. Wasn't it just about most of the United States at
    one point or another was the traditional habitat for the gray
    wolf, including all of New York and the northern half of New
    Jersey? Is this an accurate assessment of what had happened
    over the time?
        Mr. Nesvik. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is my understanding of
    kind of the historical occupied habitat of wolves back in pre-
    settlement.
        Senator Barrasso. So, John, in your written testimony, when
    you say that wolves inhabit about 15 percent of the historic
    range, I think this is truly the case, you can see from the
    chart of all of the places where they were, are you advocating
    that this return is something that could be feasible?
        Mr. Vucetich. No, I am not advocating for that, nor has
    anyone else who has worked on this issue of significant portion
    of range. I think what is disturbing to many folks who are
    focused on this issue is that 15 percent wouldn't seem, prima
    facie, to satisfy that notion of, and I am using words a little
    less technically, kind of widely distributed, or significant
    portion of range, as the law states. They are concerned that
    that number doesn't meet the mark.
        There is also pretty plain awareness that wolves can do
    well in other places. Not all of those places, but definitely
    other places. Places that folks have talked about are the
    Northeast, Pacific Northwest, the southern Rockies, which is
    kind of Colorado and northern New Mexico.
        And I don't know that here is the place to go into the very
    fine details about that, but just that there are those places
    that people have made the case that wolves could do well there.
        Senator Barrasso. And I think we have tried to reflect that
    with the green, which, at the bottom, if you could maybe hold
    this up a little bit, where we say potential habitat.
        Mr. Vucetich. Yes.
        Senator Barrasso. In green. And then currently occupied
    habitat in the red, and then the gray all of the location.
        So anything final?
        Any final comment, Brian, you would like to make on all of
    this?
        Mr. Nesvik. So, Mr. Chairman, I guess the one thing I would
    conclude with is that our experience in Wyoming has been that
    gray wolves is a species that does not coexist well with human
    activity. They require large expanses of undisturbed habitat in
    order to do well. We have that in Wyoming, and that is where we
    have focused our wolf management plan, is in those areas where
    it is both biologically and socially suitable habitat for
    wolves.
        In most of the rest of the State wolves find themselves in
    conflict very quickly when they expand to those other areas.
    The areas you highlight on that map are places where there are
    some larger open expanses, but wolves travel. We have seen
    wolves travel 25, 30 miles in a day, and wolves eat meat. That
    is a scientific fact. So it is very difficult to find those
    large expanses of range where wolves can exist where they don't
    conflict with livestock operations.
        But I do believe this, and I will conclude with this, Mr.
    Chairman, that we have demonstrated and have fully committed to
    do both things, mitigate livestock conflicts and also manage
    for a viable, healthy, and fully recovered wolf population in
    the State of Wyoming in the future.
        [The referenced information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Well, I want to thank all of you today.
    Members may submit follow up written questions which may happen
    for the record. The hearing record will be open for 2 weeks.
        I want to thank all the witnesses for your time and
    testimony today.
        The hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m. the Committee was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]