- LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 764, TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO REISSUE REGULATIONS REMOVING THE GRAY WOLF FROM THE LIST OF ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE UNDERTHE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973, ``TRUST THE SCIENCE ACT''; H.R. 886, TO AMEND THE SAVE OUR SEAS 2.0 ACT TO IMPROVE THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE MARINE DEBRIS FOUNDATION, TO AMEND THE MARINE DEBRIS ACT TO IMPROVE THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE MARINE DEBRIS PROGRAM OF THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``SAVE OUR SEAS 2.0 AMENDMENTS ACT''; H.R. 1245, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO REISSUE A FINAL RULE RELATING TO REMOVING THE GREATER YELLOWSTONE ECOSYSTEM POPULATION OF GRIZZLY BEARS FROM THE FEDERAL LIST OF ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``GRIZZLY BEAR STATE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2023''; AND H.R. 1419, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO ISSUE A NEW RULE REMOVING THE NORTHERN CONTINENTAL DIVIDE ECOSYSTEM POPULATION OF GRIZZLY BEARS FROM THE FEDERAL LIST OF ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE, ``COMPREHENSIVE GRIZZLY BEAR MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2023''

    [House Hearing, 118 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

               H.R. 764, ``TRUST THE SCIENCE ACT''; H.R. 886,
             ``SAVE OUR SEAS 2.0 AMENDMENTS ACT''; H.R. 1245,
         ``GRIZZLY BEAR STATE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2023''; AND H.R. 1419,
            ``COMPREHENSIVE GRIZZLY BEAR MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2023''

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

                              LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                                   before the

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

                                     of the

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                            Thursday, March 23, 2023

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 118-10

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

                     [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                       or
              Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov

                                   ______

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    51-683 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2023

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                         BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                        DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                      RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

    Doug Lamborn, CO		      Grace F. Napolitano, CA
    Robert J. Wittman, VA		      Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
    Tom McClintock, CA		          CNMI
    Paul Gosar, AZ			      Jared Huffman, CA
    Garret Graves, LA		      Ruben Gallego, AZ
    Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS	      Joe Neguse, CO
    Doug LaMalfa, CA		      Mike Levin, CA
    Daniel Webster, FL		      Katie Porter, CA
    Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR	      Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
    Russ Fulcher, ID		      Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
    Pete Stauber, MN		      Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
    John R. Curtis, UT		      Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
    Tom Tiffany, WI			      Kevin Mullin, CA
    Jerry Carl, AL			      Val T. Hoyle, OR
    Matt Rosendale, MT		      Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
    Lauren Boebert, CO		      Seth Magaziner, RI
    Cliff Bentz, OR			      Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
    Jen Kiggans, VA			      Ed Case, HI
    Jim Moylan, GU			      Debbie Dingell, MI
    Wesley P. Hunt, TX		      Susie Lee, NV
    Mike Collins, GA
    Anna Paulina Luna, FL
    John Duarte, CA
    Harriet M. Hageman, WY

                        Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                          Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
                     Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
                       http://naturalresources.house.gov

                                     ------

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

                           CLIFF BENTZ, OR, Chairman
                          JEN KIGGANS, VA, Vice Chair
                       JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Member

    Robert J. Wittman, VA                Grace F. Napolitano, CA
    Tom McClintock, CA                   Mike Levin, CA
    Garret Graves, LA                    Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
    Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS         Kevin Mullin, CA
    Doug LaMalfa, CA                     Val T. Hoyle, OR
    Daniel Webster, FL                   Seth Magaziner, RI
    Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR         Debbie Dingell, MI
    Jerry Carl, AL                       Ruben Gallego, AZ
    Lauren Boebert, CO                   Joe Neguse, CO
    Jen Kiggans, VA                      Katie Porter, CA
    Anna Paulina Luna, FL                Ed Case, HI
    John Duarte, CA                      Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
    Harriet M. Hageman, WY
    Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio

                                     ------

                                    CONTENTS

                                   ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on Thursday, March 23, 2023.........................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Bentz, Hon. Cliff, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Oregon............................................     2
        Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of California........................................     3
        Boebert, Hon. Lauren, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Colorado..........................................     9
        Rosendale, Hon. Matt, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Montana...........................................    11
        Hageman Hon. Harriet M., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of Wyoming.......................................    12
        Bonamici, Hon. Suzanne, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Michigan..........................................    16

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Guertin, Stephen, Deputy Director for Policy, U.S. Fish and
          Wildlife Service, Washington, DC...........................    18
            Prepared statement of....................................    19
        Wallace, Nancy, Marine Debris Program Director, National
          Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring,
          Maryland...................................................    23
            Prepared statement of....................................    24
            Questions submitted for the record.......................    29
        Nesvik, Brian, Director, Wyoming Game and Fish Department,
          Cheyenne, Wyoming..........................................    32
            Prepared statement of....................................    34
        Roberts, Nathan, Associate Professor, College of the Ozarks,
          Branson, Missouri..........................................    43
            Prepared statement of....................................    44
        Servheen, Christopher, Retired Grizzly Bear Recovery
          Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula,
          Montana....................................................    46
            Prepared statement of....................................    47
        Johnson, Karli, Rancher, Sevens Livestock, Choteau, Montana..    50
            Prepared statement of....................................    52

    Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Luna
            ``Save the Turtles'' poster..............................    62

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Hageman
            Gun Owners of America, Letter dated March 22, 2023.......    14

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Stauber
            U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, News Release, dated June 7,
              2013...................................................    74

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Huffman
            Fish & Wildlife, Letter to Montana Fish, Wildlife and
              Parks..................................................     5
            Tribal Organizations, Letter to Sec. Deb Haaland, dated
              September 13, 2021.....................................     6
            Northern Cheyenne Tribe Administration, Letter to the
              Committee, dated March 22, 2023........................     8
            Vucetich, John A., Ph.D., Letter to the Committee, dated
              March 17, 2023.........................................    79
            National Parks Conservation Association, Letter to the
              Committee, dated March 22, 2023........................    81
            Various Organizations, Letter to the Committee, dated
              March 22, 2023.........................................    83

     LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 764, TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF
    THE INTERIOR TO REISSUE REGULATIONS REMOVING THE GRAY WOLF FROM
        THE LIST OF ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE UNDERTHE
    ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973, ``TRUST THE SCIENCE ACT''; H.R.
        886, TO AMEND THE SAVE OUR SEAS 2.0 ACT TO IMPROVE THE
     ADMINISTRATION OF THE MARINE DEBRIS FOUNDATION, TO AMEND THE
     MARINE DEBRIS ACT TO IMPROVE THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE MARINE
        DEBRIS PROGRAM OF THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
      ADMINISTRATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``SAVE OUR SEAS 2.0
      AMENDMENTS ACT''; H.R. 1245, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE
       INTERIOR TO REISSUE A FINAL RULE RELATING TO REMOVING THE
    GREATER YELLOWSTONE ECOSYSTEM POPULATION OF GRIZZLY BEARS FROM
    THE FEDERAL LIST OF ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE, AND FOR
    OTHER PURPOSES, ``GRIZZLY BEAR STATE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2023'';
    AND H.R. 1419, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO ISSUE
     A NEW RULE REMOVING THE NORTHERN CONTINENTAL DIVIDE ECOSYSTEM
    POPULATION OF GRIZZLY BEARS FROM THE FEDERAL LIST OF ENDANGERED
         AND THREATENED WILDLIFE, ``COMPREHENSIVE GRIZZLY BEAR
                        MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2023''

                                  ----------

                            Thursday, March 23, 2023

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                 Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries

                         Committee on Natural Resources

                                 Washington, DC

                                  ----------

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:17 a.m., in
    Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Cliff Bentz
    [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

        Present: Representatives Bentz, LaMalfa, Boebert, Luna,
    Duarte, Hageman; Huffman, Peltola, Hoyle, Magaziner, Porter,
    and Grijalva.
        Also present: Representatives Rosendale, Stauber, Tiffany,
    Zinke; Beyer, and Bonamici.

        Mr. Bentz. The Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and
    Fisheries will come to order.
        Good morning, everyone. I want to welcome our witnesses,
    Members, and our guests in the audience to today's hearing.
        Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
    recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
        Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
    hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority
    Member.
        I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Wisconsin,
    Mr. Tiffany; the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Stauber; the
    gentleman from Montana, Mr. Rosendale; the gentlelady from
    Oregon, Ms. Bonamici; the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Beyer;
    and the gentleman from Montana, Mr. Zinke, be allowed to
    participate in today's hearing.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that all other Members'
    opening statements be made part of the hearing record if they
    are submitted in accordance with the Committee Rule 3(o).
        Without objection, so ordered.

        We are here today to consider four bills: H.R. 764, the
    Trust the Science Act, sponsored by Representative Boebert;
    H.R. 886, the Save Our Seas 2.0 Amendments Act, sponsored by
    Representative Bonamici; H.R. 1245, the Grizzly Bear State
    Management Act, sponsored by Representative Hageman; and H.R.
    1419, the Comprehensive Grizzly Bear Management Act, sponsored
    by Representative Rosendale.
        I will now make my opening statement on these bills.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. CLIFF BENTZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                        FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

        Mr. Bentz. The purpose today is to call out and review and,
    hopefully, improve the Endangered Species Act, now 50 years
    old. Some might say that it is perfect and doesn't need to be
    changed. Nothing could be further from the truth. And a law, no
    matter how old--in this case, 50 years--certainly can be
    improved. We have had all kinds of evidence to suggest how the
    bills that we are going to be reviewing today will suggest
    several approaches to improving the Act.
        Those who might suggest that this law is perfect need look
    no further than my state of Oregon to see failures of that law.
    The simplest failure to call out is the spotted owl
    misdesignation, if you will, in my state, which caused the loss
    of at least 32,000 jobs in the timber industry--some would say
    more--and serious damage to many local communities. After the
    damage was done, it was determined that, of course, it wasn't
    the timber business that was harming the spotted owl
    significantly, it was the barred owl that was an invasive
    species that was harming the spotted owl. But too late for the
    32,000 that lost their jobs.
        The same type of description can apply and does apply to
    the spotted frog, which is in Jefferson County and Deschutes
    County, a little bit--in my district, a little bit in Crook
    County. And we have some folks visiting from all those
    thousands of miles away today here in our hearing, in the back
    row, and I am very happy to welcome them here. They are
    extraordinarily concerned about the impact that the spotted
    frog will have on their ability to continue to irrigate
    hundreds, if not thousands, of acres of land that are producing
    some of the most important seed crops in the United States.
        And this type of damage based upon a science that is
    questionable, and application, is all too prevalent in the use
    of the Endangered Species Act. So, again, those who would say
    that this law is perfect are wrong.
        And I want to repeat. Any law can be improved, and that is
    what we are about. This is the first hearing that we will hold
    on the ESA, but certainly not the last. We will have
    discussions about how to make this law work better. And I am
    sure we are going to hear a lot about how we are trying to
    repeal it, gut it, destroy it. That is not the case. What we
    are trying to do is make this law work better.
        One of the parts of the discussion has to be the cost of
    implementation of this bill. For example, the spotted frog, it
    is estimated--by one of the agencies in charge of trying to
    figure out what to do with it, that it is going to cost well
    over $2 billion to save the spotted frog. Now, I have nothing
    against the spotted frog, but it is one species of somewhere
    between 3 million and 30 million species. I looked it up last
    night to see how many there were. And of course, 97 percent of
    those are invertebrate. But the other 3 percent are those that
    this bill focuses most upon.
        The question is how much money can this nation spend on
    recovering these species? The spotted frog, I want to say $2.9
    billion, but I could be off on those numbers. How much can we
    afford to spend? And that issue will also be coming up in these
    discussions.
        No conversation, if you are from Oregon, is complete
    without talking about the Klamath. The Klamath is down adjacent
    to California, and it is a challenged river in many respects,
    because much of its water goes to Southern California. So, the
    challenge there is how do we appropriately balance the farmers
    that live upstream from the stretch of river that has salmon in
    it, and how do we balance the use of water that goes into a
    lake that has the suckerfish in it, both endangered. And that
    balance seems to be sadly missing.
        What our Committee is going to focus upon is the
    inappropriate allocation of cost to communities in rural
    Oregon. And I will just say you don't see too many wolves
    wandering around in downtown LA; you don't see too many grizzly
    bears in downtown New York. So, it is easy for folks in those
    spaces to suggest changes to areas, or restrictions to areas,
    or damage to areas that are far from their homes. And we will
    be talking about that also.
        It is my hope that these conversations will lead to
    improvements in this Act, and I look forward to the
    conversations today and, of course, look forward to what the
    witnesses have to say.
        With that, I want to turn the opening statement opportunity
    over to the Ranking Member, Congressman Huffman.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Huffman. I thank the Chairman, and I want to thank our
    witnesses who have traveled a long way to testify here today.
    Welcome.
        We have four bills before us today, one of which I support,
    H.R. 886 by Representative Bonamici, the Save Our Seas 2.0
    Amendments Act, a bipartisan bill that would amend the Marine
    Debris Program and Foundation. But the rest of the agenda, I
    have to say, is a hot mess of extreme anti-science, anti-tribe,
    anti-wildlife bills.
        I don't think anyone would claim that the ESA or any other
    law is perfect, but improving these laws seems to be a
    euphemism with some of our friends across the aisle, because so
    far every so-called improvement proposal I have seen involves
    weakening, and gutting, and reducing protections, as if we have
    too many of these threatening endangered species.
        So, look, this is the 50th anniversary of the Endangered
    Species Act. It has been tremendously successful for 50 years.
    We have been working to recover endangered and threatened
    species. We have kept 99 percent of these species from going
    extinct, and we have recovered beloved iconic species like the
    bald eagle and the humpback whale. Thank you, Endangered
    Species Act.
        Unfortunately, the Republican Majority wants to celebrate
    this anniversary by undermining a law that 80 percent of
    Americans support. In fact, there was a recent election in
    Colorado that the whole nation was watching. It was super
    close, came down to the wire at the last minute. Of course, I
    am talking about the election that resulted in the people of
    Colorado voting by 50.9 percent to 49.1 percent to restore
    protection for gray wolves. The gray wolves are more popular
    than some of the politicians that want to delist them.
        Unfortunately, the Republican bills in this hearing target
    the grizzly bear and gray wolf, two very iconic species in the
    American West with deep cultural and spiritual significance to
    Tribal Nations and the American people.
        And the sheer hubris of these bills is impressive. The idea
    that we, as Members of Congress sitting here in Washington, are
    more qualified than scientists and experts at the top of their
    field to make delisting decisions for the Endangered Species
    Act, and then to lock those in by insulating them from judicial
    review, that is incredibly extreme.
        Every one of us in this room probably has an opinion on
    these matters. But in many ways, and certainly under the law,
    our opinions shouldn't matter. Congress has no business listing
    or delisting species. These bills ignore science, rather than
    trust it. They bypass science. They also ignore concerns of
    tribes. They prohibit judicial review. Enacting these bills
    would indeed undermine the successful recovery of these species
    and the rule of law.
        So, look, if we care about the law, there actually is a
    science-based process for delisting species. Population size is
    just one of many factors. The Fish and Wildlife Service must
    also assess other factors, including whether the species has
    met recovery goals across a significant part of its range,
    habitat destruction, disease, predation, the status of
    regulatory and recovery efforts by the states, and other
    factors.
        And, importantly, the Fish and Wildlife Service must
    consult with tribes. These bills would legislatively delist the
    species we are talking about--the gray wolf and grizzly bear,
    turn over management to the states, lock it in without judicial
    review, and completely bypass tribal consultation.
        We don't have to guess what these states will do. We saw it
    play out in the months after the Trump administration delisted
    the wolf and the greater Yellowstone grizzly. What happened
    then?
        Well, Idaho authorized the killing of 90 percent of their
    1,500 wolves; Montana approved a statewide harvest quota of 450
    wolves, 40 percent of the state's population, until an
    unprecedented number of Yellowstone wolves were killed.
    Wisconsin allowed the killing of 30 percent of its wolves in
    one hunting season. In August 2021, 17 killings of gray wolf
    pups, some as young as 1 week old, occurred, threatening future
    populations. Idaho and Montana went back to the old bounty
    system, paying hunters for wolf kills, and authorizing
    trapping, snaring, night vision equipment, baiting, motorized
    vehicles, and dogs to track and kill.
        Grizzlies are a similar story. Following the 2017 Trump
    administration delisting, Wyoming and Idaho proposed trophy
    hunting seasons, and the proposal would have allowed hunters to
    kill bears just outside of Yellowstone and Grand Teton National
    Park. Some of these states want to manage wolves and grizzlies
    like Buffalo Bill managed bison.
        I am out of time, Mr. Chairman, but I think you know how I
    feel about these bills. I look forward to hearing from our
    witnesses, and I do have a few unanimous consent requests that
    I would like to make as we close out.
        I would like unanimous consent to enter into the record a
    letter from the Director of Fish and Wildlife Service, Martha
    Williams, to the Director of Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks,
    expressing concern over state laws which conflict with the ESA
    and threaten delisting of the grizzly bear; and a letter from
    eight tribal organizations to Secretary of the Interior Deb
    Haaland, reminding the Department of the Interior of its tribal
    trust responsibilities; and then finally, a letter from the
    Northern Cheyenne Tribal Administration emphasizing the
    spiritual and cultural significance of grizzly bears, and
    opposing H.R. 1245 and H.R. 1419.

        Mr. Bentz. Without objection, so ordered.

        [The information follows:]

                    United States Department of the Interior

                           FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

                                Washington, D.C.

    Director Hank Worsech
    Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks
    P.O. Box 200701
    Helena, Montana 59620-0801

        Dear Director Worsech:

        The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and Montana Fish,
    Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) share common goals to provide for the
    stewardship of wildlife and contribute to the quality of life for the
    citizens of Montana and the United States. As part of those goals, we
    have been working together on grizzly bear conservation and recovery
    for many decades and look forward to working with you in the continued
    recovery of this species.
        However, Montana Senate Bill 98 (SB 98) conflicts with the
    Endangered Species Act (ESA) and is inconsistent with commitments made
    by the State of Montana on how grizzly bears would be managed if they
    were to be delisted. We are also concerned that other recently passed
    legislation targeting wolves and black bears has the potential to
    increase grizzly bear mortality and human safety. These legislative
    actions, collectively or individually, relate to the ESA requirement
    that we consider ``the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms''
    when we determine whether to list or delist a species or population
    (Sec 4(a)(1)(D)).
        SB 98 amended Montana Code to legalize the taking of a grizzly bear
    in the act of depredating on livestock. This is contrary to our
    existing 4(d) rule (50 C.F.R. Sec. 17.40), that allows for the taking
    of a grizzly bear only ``in self-defense or in defense of others.''
    Further, per the 4(d) rule, ``nuisance bears shall only be taken by
    authorized state, federal, or tribal agencies.'' The amended state law
    could lead members of the public to wrongly believe that killing a
    grizzly bear when it is killing or threatening to kill livestock is
    legal, when in fact it is illegal under the ESA and individuals taking
    a bear under these circumstances would be subject to possible civil and
    criminal penalties. To bring Montana code into alignment with federal
    regulations, the language that allows the taking of a grizzly bear to
    protect livestock would need to be removed from the law or language
    would need to be added to the law to clarify that the taking of a
    grizzly bear by a private individual to protect livestock would only be
    lawful after the grizzly bear has been delisted federally.
        Montana has committed to comply with population standards and
    objectives in the Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the
    Northern Continental Divide Conservation Ecosystem (NCDE) upon
    delisting, as outlined in Administrative Rule of Montana 12.9.1403
    (2018), which functions as the primary regulatory mechanism assuring
    that this population would remain secure without the protections
    afforded by the ESA once delisted. However, the amendment to 87-6-106
    brought about by SB 98 is inconsistent with these commitments because
    there is no population trigger for halting discretionary mortality
    provided for in the amendment to 87-6-106, and there is no method to
    notify Montana citizens that the mortality threshold has been met and
    that taking of grizzly bears should stop except in self-defense or in
    defense of others. To anticipate compliance with the terms of any
    future delisting, Montana law ought to provide a mechanism to end this
    type of mortality when the mortality threshold for any sex or age class
    (as set forth in ARM 12.9.1403) has been met.
        We are also concerned that other recently passed legislation
    allowing wolf snaring and trapping and allowing the use of dogs to
    pursue black bears in occupied grizzly bear range will invite conflicts
    between hunters and grizzly bears, including potential injuries and
    mortalities for grizzly bears and risks to human safety. The current
    2023 Montana legislative session presents a good opportunity to address
    these issues.
        In addition, the Service has submitted comments on the draft MFWP
    Grizzly Bear Management Plan, and we look forward to addressing any
    concerns we may have once you have reviewed those comments.
        As I know we both appreciate, there are many instances of good
    coordination between the Service and MFWP. These include the Service
    funding to USDA Wildlife Services to address grizzly bear conflicts
    with livestock producers in Montana as well as adding additional
    Service grizzly bear conflict specialists to address human/grizzly bear
    conflicts. I hope that Montana will also continue to look for resources
    to address human/grizzly bear conflicts.
        Finally, I hope that MFWP would continue to work with the Montana
    Department of Transportation to identify funding through the Federal
    Highway Administration for wildlife crossings that could be so helpful
    along the I-90 corridor and elsewhere.
        If you have additional questions or require further clarification
    on this topic, please contact Matt Hogan at matt_hogan@fws.gov.

                Sincerely,

                                               Martha Williams,
                                                               Director

                                     ______

                                                 September 13, 2021

    Hon. Deb Haaland, Secretary
    Department of the Interior
    1849 C Street, N.W.
    Washington, DC 20240

        Dear Secretary Haaland:

        The federal government's trust responsibility toward sovereign
    Indian nations dates back to the very beginning of the country. First
    acknowledged as early as 1831 in the trio of Supreme Court cases known
    as the ``Marshall Trilogy,'' it was the Court's holding in Worcester v.
    Georgia in 1832 that laid the foundations for tribal sovereignty. This
    foundation has survived several eras in federal Indian policy. From
    termination and relocation to allotment and assimilation. We are now
    living in the era of self-determination, yet recent actions reminds us
    that we have much work to do.
        In recent years, the federal government often has failed in its
    treaty and trust responsibility and its regulatory framework to engage
    in meaningful consultation with tribal nations. Time and again, the
    federal government has taken actions anathema to sovereign tribal
    nations, and the delisting of the gray wolf is an example.
        We are well aware that you fully understand that as a land-based
    people, the rocks and soil that form our landscapes, and the plants and
    animals that live upon them, are central to our belief systems and make
    up the fabric that ties our communities together. Rather than
    respecting our way of life and honoring the hundreds of treaties,
    without any tribal input, the government has authorized oil drilling
    and mining, encouraged forest loggings, and decimated wildlife
    populations--ignoring the significance of land and animals to tribal
    communities. Most recently, and without engaging in the required
    consultation with Indian Country, the Trump administration delisted the
    gray wolf from the endangered species list, putting the wolf's tenuous
    recovery at risk. Not only did the federal government further erode
    tribal sovereignty by not consulting with Indian Country, this action
    by the federal government ignores our collective voices--Native
    voices--by failing to give any thought to our interests, sacred
    ceremonies, and cultures. Tribes should have the opportunity to
    participate in developing and implementing culturally sensitive wolf
    population management programs. By allowing tribes a seat at the table,
    through meaningful consultation, such solutions are possible.

        Given the immediate threat facing the gray wolf as the result of
    states enacting anti-wolf policies that present a real potential of
    decimating wolf populations, we write to desperately urge you to
    immediately act upon the emergency petition filed on May 26, 2021, to
    relist the gray wolf as endangered or threatened under the Endangered
    Species Act (ESA). Just as important, we also call on you to exercise
    existing authority to list the gray wolf as such on an emergency basis.
    Emergency listing is a temporary measure that ensures immediate
    protection and expires 240 days following the publication date. This
    240-day pause will allow the federal government to engage in proper and
    meaningful consultation with tribes. Today, the wolf is functionally
    extinct in over 80% of its historic range, with only 6,000 surviving in
    the United States. Wolves figure prominently in the folklore of nearly
    every Native American tribe. In most Native cultures, the wolf is
    considered a medicine being associated with courage, strength, loyalty,
    and success at hunting. Like bears, wolves are considered closely
    related to humans by many North American tribes, and the origin stories
    of some Northwest Coastal tribes tell of their first ancestors being
    transformed from wolves into men. In Shoshone mythology, the wolf plays
    the role of the noble Creator god, while in Anishinabe mythology a wolf
    character is the brother and true best friend of the culture hero.
    Among the Pueblo tribes, wolves are considered one of the six
    directional guardians, associated with the east and the color white,
    and associated with protection, ascribing to them both healing and
    hunting powers. Wolves are also one of the most common clan animals in
    Native American cultures. Tribes with Wolf Clans include the Creek,
    Cherokee, Chickasaw, Chippewa, Algonquian tribes like the Shawnee and
    Menominee, Iroquois tribes, Plains tribes like the Caddo and Osage, the
    Pueblo tribes of New Mexico, and Northwest Coastal tribes.
        Had either the Trump or Biden Administrations consulted tribal
    nations, as treaty and trust responsibilities require, they would have
    heard that as a sacred creature, the wolf is an integral part of the
    land-based identity that shapes our communities, beliefs, customs, and
    traditions. The land, and all it contains, is our temple.
        The Department of the Interior Secretarial Order No. 3206, Federal-
    Tribal trust responsibilities and the Endangered Species Act, is
    displayed on Fish & Wildlife Services website under the tab ``working
    with tribes''. The Secretarial Order lists a number of principles the
    Department endeavors to follow. Principle number 4 states the
    ``Department shall be sensitive to Indian culture, religion and
    spirituality.'' In the appendix to the Order, dated June 5, 1997, under
    Sec. 3., subsections B and C; the order reaffirms the right of tribes
    to participate fully in the listing process. Section 3(B)(6) states:
    ``Having first provided the affected Indian tribe(s) the opportunity to
    actively review and comment on proposed listing actions, [the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service shall]
    provide affected Indian tribe(s) with a written explanation whenever a
    final decision on any of the following activities conflicts with
    comments provided by an affected Indian tribe: (i) list a species as
    endangered or threatened; (ii) designate critical habitat; (iii)
    reclassify a species from endangered to threatened (or vice versa);
    (iv) remove a species from the list; [emphasis added] or (v) designate
    experimental populations.''

        Finally, when President Biden took office, he loudly signaled to
    Indian Country his commitment to the responsibility this nation has to
    honor treaty and trust obligations to tribal nations. On January 26,
    2021, less than a week into his presidency, the President issued an
    executive memorandum reaffirming the requirement that each executive
    agency, in accordance with Executive Order 13175 (November 6, 2000),
    consult with Tribal nations when making policies impacting Indian
    tribes.
        As such, to avoid rendering President Biden's commitment and
    promise to Indian Country meaningless, and to put a hold on the
    continued slaughter of the gray wolf, we demand that you immediately
    grant the emergency relisting petition to give the federal government
    the chance to follow precedent and engage in consultation with tribes.
        The failure to take action here, thus ignoring the concerns of
    tribal nations, would signal to Indian Country that President Biden's
    promises to Indian Country are hollow. Every concern matters, and thus,
    every tribal concern, and not some, must be the subject of meaningful
    consultation. There should be no exceptions, short cuts, and/or turning
    a blind eye to any matter impacting tribal interests. The failure of
    the Department of Interior to engage in meaningful consultation is a
    serious breach of trust, and we fully expect that you will understand
    this to be as such, and take the action that is required and grant an
    emergency listing. This would allow for the Biden administration to not
    only show its commitment to Indian Country, but the proper time to
    correct a wrong birthed by the previous administration. The delisting
    of the gray wolf without tribal consultation is a stain that we are
    certain you don't want to preserve under your leadership.

                Sincerely,

            Affiliated Tribes of
            Northwest Indians             Native Justice Coalition

            Association on American
            Indian Affairs                Navajo Nation

            Great Plains Tribal
            Chairman's Association        Oneida Nation of Wisconsin

            Inter Tribal Council of
            Arizona                       Rocky Mountain Tribal Leaders
                                          Council

                                     ______

                     NORTHERN CHEYENNE TRIBE ADMINISTRATION

                               Lame Deer, Montana

                                                     March 22, 2023

    Re: The Northern Cheyenne Tribe's Opposition to H.R. 1245 and H.R. 1419

        Dear Chairman Bentz:

        The Northern Cheyenne people once shared our traditional homelands
    in the Tongue River and Powder River Basins with grizzly bears. Grizzly
    bears once ranged throughout the traditional territory of the Northern
    Cheyenne people, including lands within the boundaries of the Northern
    Cheyenne Reservation in southeast Montana. However, like the territory
    of the Northern Cheyenne people, the range of the grizzly bear was
    vastly diminished as the result of encroachment by settlers and
    prospectors beginning in the 19th century. Since that time, grizzly
    bears in the region have been limited to Yellowstone National Park and
    surrounding areas and they are no longer present on the Northern
    Cheyenne Reservation.
        The Northern Cheyenne people view the grizzly bear as a spiritual
    relative and have great respect for the bear's strength and power, as
    well as its right to live free from harm. We believe that the Creator
    gave the grizzly bear a spirit in the same way that the Creator gave us
    a spirit, and that the grizzly bear has a right to exist and to be left
    alone.
        We believe that the Tribe has a sacred responsibility to speak for
    the grizzly bear, which cannot speak for itself. In our view, this is
    equivalent to our obligation to speak on behalf of members of our
    family when they are unable to speak up for their own interests.
        The Tribe opposes any effort by Congress to reduce legal
    protections for grizzly bears in Montana and Wyoming. Such legislative
    delisting would almost certainly result in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho
    opening up hunting seasons for grizzlies. Recreational trophy hunting
    of grizzly bears flies in the face of the Northern Cheyenne belief that
    the grizzly bear is sacred and a gift of the Creator. Hunting a grizzly
    is like hunting one of our relatives--it's disturbing. The Northern
    Cheyenne Tribe will not be satisfied until grizzly bears are restored
    to their former range and the Northern Cheyenne people are able to
    resume their traditional practices involving grizzly bears.

                Sincerely,

                                            William Walksalong,
                                                   Tribal Administrator

                                     ______

        Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And then also, I
    would ask unanimous consent that Representative Don Beyer of
    Virginia have permission to sit at the dais and participate in
    the hearing, and that Representative Suzanne Bonamici of Oregon
    have permission to sit at the dais and participate today.
        Mr. Bentz. Without objection, so ordered.
        Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Bentz. I will now introduce our first panel, which
    consists of members who are sponsoring today's bills:
    Congresswoman Lauren Boebert, representing the 3rd District of
    Colorado; Congressman Matt Rosendale, representing the 2nd
    District of Montana; Congresswoman Harriet Hageman,
    representing all of Wyoming; and Congresswoman Suzanne
    Bonamici, representing Oregon's 1st Congressional District.
        I now recognize Representative Boebert for 5 minutes.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. LAUREN BOEBERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

        Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this
    time today. And thank you so much for everyone who is attending
    here and traveling so far to be here.
        I do want to say before my opening remarks, since we are
    talking about the Endangered Species Act, I am just wondering
    if my colleagues on the other side would put babies on the
    endangered species list. These babies were born in Washington,
    DC, full term. I don't know, maybe that is the way we can save
    some children here in the United States.
        Mr. Chairman, I am appreciative of you holding this
    important hearing. For far too long, the Endangered Species Act
    has been weaponized by extremists, extremist environmentalists,
    to obstruct common-sense, multiple-use activities that they
    disagree with.
        Shamefully, some of these groups have also profited
    immensely from these slimy tactics. Some of these groups, for
    example, the Center for Biological Diversity made more than $10
    million alone from suing and settling with the Federal
    Government and through other frivolous litigation. While well
    intentioned, the ESA has been weaponized, and we need to
    restore some balance to this process. And that is exactly what
    the bills in today's hearing do.
        I am thrilled to see my bill, H.R. 764, the Trust the
    Science Act, included in this hearing. In 2020, the Department
    of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services
    delisted the gray wolf in the Lower 48 United States through a
    process that included the best science and data available. At
    over 6,000 wolves at the time of the delisting, and more than
    7,000 wolves in the United States currently, the gray wolf is
    an Endangered Species Act success story, and it shouldn't
    languish on the endangered species list any longer, especially
    as such listings defy common sense and science.
        In 2021, environmental groups filed three separate cases in
    the Northern District of California challenging the rule under
    the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedure
    Act. As a result, a Federal District Court judge in California
    with an agenda vacated the final rule back to the Service,
    thereby restoring the ESA protections for the gray wolf across
    most of the United States.
        Congressman Tom Tiffany and I have introduced legislation,
    along with nearly two dozen of our colleagues, to reissue the
    2020 rule, and fully delist gray wolves in the Lower 48,
    consistent with the best available science.
        H.R. 764 requires the Secretary of the Interior to reissue
    the 2020 Department of the Interior final rule that delists
    gray wolves in the Lower 48, and ensures that the reinsurance
    of the final rule will not be subject to judicial review. Gray
    wolves are fully recovered, and should remain delisted in the
    Lower 48.
        Groups that have supported the Trust the Science Act in the
    117th Congress or the 118th Congress include: Alaska Farm
    Bureau Federation; Big Game Forever; Colorado Cattlemen's
    Association; Colorado Conservation Alliance; Colorado Farm
    Bureau; Colorado Livestock Association; Colorado Wool Growers
    Association; FreedomWorks; Hunter Nation; Idaho Farm Bureau
    Federation; Mid-States Wool Growers Association; Minnesota Farm
    Bureau; Minnesota Lamb and Wool Producers Association;
    Minnesota State Cattlemen's Association; National Rifle
    Association; New Mexico Cattle Growers Association; Rio Blanco
    County Commissioners, right in my district; Rio Blanco County
    Farm Bureau; Safari Club International; Sportsmen for Fish and
    Wildlife; Southwestern Colorado Livestock Association;
    Washington Farm Bureau; Washington State Hunter Heritage
    Council; Western Caucus; Wisconsin Cattlemen's Association; and
    Wisconsin's Farm Bureau Federation.
        I have dozens of letters of support here with me today.
    And, Mr. Chairman, with unanimous consent, I would like to
    submit these for the record.
        Mr. Bentz. Without objection, so ordered.
        Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Gray wolves are fully recovered, and should remain delisted
    in the Lower 48, and they should be managed by states who have
    proven more than capable at managing these thriving
    populations.
        On the right, we want to be good stewards of our land, and
    wildlife, and our waters. We want to be a part of that managing
    process with wildlife, not have wildlife manage itself.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield. Thank you.
        Mr. Bentz. I recognize Representative Rosendale for 5
    minutes.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. MATT ROSENDALE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

        Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My legislation, the
    Comprehensive Grizzly Bear Management Act, H.R. 1419, would
    direct the Secretary of the Interior to remove the Northern
    Continental Divide Ecosystem population of grizzly bears from
    the endangered species list. This legislation would allow
    Montanans to protect their lives and livelihoods from
    aggressive bears that have become far too comfortable around
    humans.
        Montana has the largest population of grizzly bears in the
    Lower 48 states, including the greater Yellowstone and Northern
    Continental Divide combined populations of nearly 2,000
    animals. Despite massive growth in these grizzly populations
    over the past several decades, they remain designated as a
    threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.
        When grizzly bear was initially designated as a threatened
    species in 1975, there were thought to be around 800 bears in
    the entire Lower 48. But since then, we have seen grizzly bear
    populations explode. Today, according to the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service, the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem
    alone, located in northwestern Montana, is home to nearly 1,100
    grizzlies. The grizzly bear is thriving. They are growing
    around 3 percent each year in northwestern Montana, and they
    have even begun to move outside of their designated recovery
    zones.
        I am glad we were able to recover from the critically low
    grizzly bear populations that we saw back in the 1970s, but it
    does not come without significant drawbacks. Human-bear
    conflicts have risen significantly, as bear populations expand
    into historically unpopulated areas. And when they do so, they
    pose a serious risk to residents who live there.
        Grizzly bears are predators. There is a small handful of
    members on this Committee that actually have grizzly bears in
    their districts, and the bureaucrats working for the government
    agencies headquartered in Washington, DC certainly don't live
    amongst grizzly bears. Yet, these bureaucrats and some members
    of this Committee insist on telling Montanans how they should
    go about their everyday lives by keeping the species listed
    without ever feeling the impact of that decision.
        In 2022, there were nearly 150 confirmed or probable claims
    of livestock predation caused by grizzly bears in Montana
    alone, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. Of course,
    these numbers don't capture the total livestock predation. It
    is impossible for ranchers to count livestock loss to predation
    if the livestock has been eaten. It is gone. You can't count
    it.
        It also does not begin to capture the human cost, the hours
    spent trying to protect livestock, the lower breed-back rates
    on their livestock, the sleepless nights, and the fear of
    letting your children play outside. We literally have school
    districts that have to put high fences up to make sure that the
    children aren't attacked by grizzly bears while they are out
    playing in the schoolyard.
        And these predators don't just claim the lives of
    livestock; they are fully capable of killing or maiming people,
    too. As bears expand outside of the recovery zones and into the
    cities, the number of conflicts and encounters expand with it.
    Just last year, a woman was pulled from her tent in Ovando,
    Montana and was killed by a grizzly bear.
        Now I am not calling for mass hunting on grizzly bears. But
    what I do support is ensuring that the states, not the Federal
    Government, are able to manage grizzly bear populations as they
    do other wildlife.
        Montana has been an excellent example of how to manage
    wildlife since the gray wolf was delisted in 2011. And as
    Representative Huffman stated, we have increased hunting, we
    have increased trapping. And the reason that we have done so is
    because the gray wolf population is about 10 times the target
    population. It continues to grow. Montana has proven it knows
    how to manage wolf populations and grizzly bear populations
    better than anybody in this room.
        As long as the grizzly bear is designated as a threatened
    species in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem, state
    management of the species is hamstrung, and my constituents
    can't defend their property from predators.
        The science does not support keeping grizzly bears listed
    as a threatened species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    tried delisting the grizzly bear several times, but has been
    overruled by judges influenced by their liberal agendas. This
    is unacceptable and must be reformed.

        Thank you, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
        Mr. Bentz. I thank you. I now recognize Representative
    Hageman for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF THE HON. HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

        Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am grateful for the
    opportunity to be here today, and it is an honor and privilege
    to discuss the future of state management of grizzly bears and
    other species with Mr. Brian Nesvik, whose expertise we deeply
    value in Wyoming.
        I am also proud to represent the citizens of Wyoming, who
    have borne the brunt of the direct effects of the ESA
    regulations through the dangerous personal encounters with
    grizzly bears or through the destruction of property and their
    livestock.
        My legislation, the Grizzly Bear State Management Act, H.R.
    1245, would remove the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population
    of grizzly bears from the Federal list of endangered and
    threatened wildlife, allowing Wyoming game officials to
    implement our own state management plan that will benefit
    Wyoming landowners, businesses, outdoorsmen and women, hunters,
    tourists, and the grizzlies themselves.
        The grizzly bear population in Wyoming is more than fully
    recovered, and continuing to increase. The most recent estimate
    of the number of grizzlies in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
    is more than 1,000 strong. This tremendously exceeds the
    recovery goals of 500 bears, meaning the management of this
    species should be returned to the state, pursuant to the
    Endangered Species Act.
        Not only have they recovered far beyond the needed
    threshold, but they have expanded their range beyond what is
    considered suitable by the Fish and Wildlife Service itself,
    now covering over 25,000 square miles.
        We value the presence of these animals in our state, and we
    have not only the ability to keep the grizzly population strong
    and manageable, but the expertise that is second to none.
    Managing Wyoming's grizzly population is more effective to do
    at a local level, as is all species management. Grizzlies can
    and should be managed by state wildlife agencies, rather than
    the Federal Government. Not only are state agencies better
    equipped to manage these populations, but they tend to have a
    better understanding of local conditions and can successfully
    tailor management strategies to fit the needs of the state and
    balance all of the competing interests.
        It is unfortunate that we even need to consider my
    legislation here today, but we have learned not to trust the
    courts to follow the Endangered Species Act. Grizzly bears were
    first listed in 1975, after populations had dropped
    dramatically. But by 2005, grizzlies in the Greater Yellowstone
    Ecosystem reached 600 in number, surpassing the threshold of
    what is required to be a recovered species. What a success
    story. We ought to build on that.
        Because of the recovery, the Fish and Wildlife Service
    proposed that the bears be removed from the Endangered Species
    Act protections. But radical environmental groups were quick to
    file suit. To our dismay, the grizzlies were relisted by the
    courts in 2009. No one was surprised when grizzly bear
    conflicts thereafter increased, with dramatic and devastating
    impacts on our ranching communities in Wyoming and Montana
    shortly thereafter.
        In 2017, Interior Secretary Zinke announced the Fish and
    Wildlife Service would again delist the greater Yellowstone
    grizzly. It was estimated at that time that over 700 bears
    existed in the ecosystem, with an expanded range of habitat.
    Even with tremendously exceeding the threshold of recovery, and
    increasing threats to rural and agricultural communities, the
    Yellowstone grizzly was returned to the Endangered Species list
    through the coordination of environmental groups and activist
    judges.
        Now, my colleagues on the other side often talk about the
    number of a particular species or animal that may have been
    killed. That point misses the most important factor to assess
    under the Endangered Species Act, which is the number of live
    animals that exist in a particular ecosystem. It is not about
    the number that may have been taken pursuant to appropriate
    take permits or pursuant to appropriate management. It is the
    number of live animals.
        So, while the Democrats want to focus on death, that isn't
    even a factor to be considered under the Endangered Species
    Act. We on this side, however, we care about life, and we care
    about the living species, and so does the Endangered Species
    Act.
        The governors of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana have
    petitioned to delist the grizzly bear because the data shows
    that it is warranted, as per the Endangered Species Act itself.
    Meanwhile, environmental litigants have been holding farmers,
    ranchers, and the government hostage to their demands, and for
    the purpose of protecting their own pocketbooks. Wyoming is
    done with waiting on the Federal Government when the science
    has said for a long time that it is time to act. This bill will
    act as a legislative backstop to prevent going through this
    unnecessary litigation again.
        Chairman Bentz, I would also like to request unanimous
    consent to enter two letters from Wyoming supporting the effort
    to delist the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population of
    grizzly bears, one from the Gun Owners of America, and the
    other one from Governor Mark Gordon.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
        Mr. Bentz. Without objection, so ordered.

        [The information follows:]

                             GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA

                                                     March 22, 2023

    Congresswoman Harriet Hageman
    1531 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

    Re: H.R. 1245, Grizzly Bear State Management Act of 2023

        Dear Congresswoman Hageman:

        The following comments are submitted on behalf of Gun Owners of
    America, Inc. an our Second Amendment Hunters Program.
        Gun Owners of America, Inc. (GOA) is organized and operated as a
    nonprofit membership organization that is exempt from federal income
    taxes under Section 501(c)(4) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. GOA
    was formed in 1976 to preserve and defend the Second Amendment rights
    of firearms owners and has become one of the nation's leading Second
    Amendment advocacy organizations, with more than two million members
    and supporters nationwide.
        GOA supports the Second Amendment Hunters (SAH) program, which was
    founded with the understanding that hunters cherish the principles of
    freedom upon which the United States was founded and have played a role
    in defending American values since our country's beginning. SAH works
    to protect hunters' rights and hunting opportunities within the bounds
    of science-based wildlife management policies in America. With over 15
    million licensed hunters in the United States, hunters represent a
    powerful voting group and stand as ardent supporters of our
    Constitutional Rights, hunting rights, and hunting opportunities.
        This letter is written to support H.R. 1245. the Grizzly Bear State
    Management Act of 2023, introduced by Wyoming Congresswoman Harriet
    Hageman. H.R. 1245 would direct the U.S. Secretary of the Interior to
    remove the Greater Yellowstone Region's (GYE) grizzly bears from the
    federal Endangered Species List (ESL). As most residents of Wyoming,
    Montana, and Idaho know, this effort, commonly referred to as
    ``Delisting'', is long overdue.
        Delisting grizzlies would return management to the states--a
    concept supported in writing by the Governors of Wyoming, Montana, and
    Idaho. In 2022, the three state Governors asked the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service (USFWS) to remove the GYE population of grizzly bears
    from the ESL.
        Grizzly bears are one of America's most intensively studied widely
    species as multiple state and federal agencies cooperate with
    universities to assess the population status of grizzlies on a routine
    basis and have done so for decades.
        In a formal petition to the USFWS, the Governors of Wyoming,
    Montana, and Idaho affirmed that grizzly bears, by all objective
    scientific measures, have been fully-recovered from ``Threatened''
    status since 2003. The USFWS, the federal agency charged with ESL
    oversight, and the three impacted state Fish and Wildlife Agencies have
    affirmed support for ESL Delisting and the Governors' position.
        In order to effectively manage grizzly bears after Delisting, the
    states of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho have developed a tri-state
    Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) regarding the management and allocation
    of discretionary mortality of grizzlies in the GYE. This MOA
    demonstrates that grizzly populations have expanded their range far
    beyond the edges of the bears' biological and socially-acceptable
    range. Grizzlies outside this area can be dangerous to both humans and
    livestock.
        Grizzlies are now found 65 miles outside the Demographic Monitoring
    Area (DMA) established by the Federal Government's own USFWS as
    suitable habitat for the long-term viability of grizzlies.
        GYE grizzly bear population research demonstrated that an estimated
    1,069 grizzlies roamed the DMA in 2021, and this estimate does not
    account for bears that have moved outside the DMA. This estimate far
    exceeds, often by more than double, all federal and state
    scientifically-established requirements for a recovered and viable
    population. These requirements have been widely researched and
    publicized over the last four decades.
        Delisting opponents downplay the fact that lethal grizzly control
    must now be regularly implemented by taxpayer-funded government
    employees to maintain a balanced grizzly population and ensure public
    safety. In one year (2021), in Wyoming alone, 29 grizzlies were
    lethally removed by government officials. According to the Wyoming Game
    and Fish Department, most of these removals occurred outside the DMA
    (again, the area considered by USFWS as suitable habitat for grizzlies)
    demonstrating that grizzly populations are thriving and moving well
    outside areas deemed suitable for their co-existence with humans and
    livestock.
        ``Delisting'' will result in management authority being turned over
    to the states following American legal traditions established by the
    North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. This ``Model'' grants
    legal authority to the states for the management of most wildlife
    species except migratory birds and those on the ESL. All 50 state
    wildlife agencies have a decades-long and proven track record of
    effectively managing resident wildlife species.
        If Congresswoman Hageman's bill passes and returns management to
    the states, hunters in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho may eventually be
    used to manage grizzly populations using tightly controlled and
    carefully regulated hunting. Many Delisting opponents simply wish to
    keep grizzly bears on the Endangered Species List because of concerns
    that the states will institute this regulated hunting to control
    grizzly populations.
        If hunting is implemented, the need for taxpayer funded killing by
    paid government employees will diminish, and hunters will actually pay
    large sums of money for the opportunity to hunt grizzlies. This will
    not only increase hunting opportunity but will bring significant
    revenue to the states of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho in the form of
    expenditures by hunters pursuing once-in-a-lifetime hunting
    opportunities currently only available in Alaska or Canada.
        Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho have a long-term management plan in
    place to ensure grizzlies do not need to be ``relisted'', and they will
    professionally manage grizzly bears just like they do all other
    resident wildlife species. There is no reason to think the states
    cannot manage grizzly bears in the same manner they manage other low
    population and high profile big game mammals such as bighorn sheep,
    bison, moose, mountain goats, and mountain lions. Populations of these
    mammals have remained steady or thrived under state management for
    decades.
        In closing, grizzly bears met and greatly exceeded all federal and
    state population recovery goals 20 years ago. Continued management
    under the ESL wastes taxpayers money, unnecessarily impacts the
    economies of the affected states, cheapens the intent and purpose of
    the ESL, and robs hunters of an opportunity to play a role in grizzly
    bear management.
        Gun Owners of America and Second Amendment Hunters publicly
    supported grizzly delisting over one year ago, applaud Congresswoman
    Hageman for introducing the Grizzly Bear State Management Act of 2023,
    and urge Members of Congress to move quickly to remove GYE grizzlies
    from the ESL and return management to the states of Wyoming, Montana,
    and Idaho.

                Sincerely,

                                                    Mark Jones,
                                         Certified Wildlife Biologist
                                    National Director, Hunter Outreach
                                                       Buffalo, Wyoming

                                     ______

        Mr. Bentz. Thank you. I now recognize Representative
    Bonamici for 5 minutes.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. SUZANNE BONAMICI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much, Chairman Bentz, Ranking
    Member Huffman, and members of the Subcommittee on Water,
    Wildlife and Fisheries for holding this hearing. I am here to
    testify in favor of H.R. 886, to amend the bipartisan Save Our
    Seas 2.0 Act.
        Marine debris is a serious problem. After the massive
    earthquake and tsunami struck the coast of Japan in 2011, large
    amounts of debris, including docks and boats carrying invasive
    species, ended up on the shores of Northwest Oregon.
    Unfortunately, much of marine debris is plastic. Today, plastic
    is everywhere in our daily lives. It appears in our homes,
    industries, grocery stores, and, increasingly, in the ocean.
        The ocean is littered with plastic bottles, straws, grocery
    bags, cigarette butts, fishing gear, and abandoned vessels.
    Tiny pieces of plastic, microplastics, make their way into
    marine life, blocking digestive tracts, altering growth, and,
    in some cases, killing marine mammals and shuttering fisheries.
        We still don't know how long it takes for plastics to
    biodegrade completely. Estimates range from 500 years to never.
    A 2020 study from the Pew Charitable Trust found that every
    year more than 11 million metric tons of plastic garbage enter
    the ocean, harming marine life and destroying ecosystems. And
    if we do nothing to minimize ocean plastic pollution, it will
    nearly quadruple by 2040.
        Let me be clear. We need to fundamentally change our
    reliance on plastics. Plastics pollute our ocean and exacerbate
    the climate crisis. The fossil fuel and plastics industries are
    deeply connected, and plastics contribute a significant share
    of industrial emissions in the United States.
        A problem this pervasive, a global challenge of this
    magnitude cannot be solved with a single bill. But we should
    not limit our action to removing existing plastic from the
    ocean, and we cannot recycle our way out of the plastic waste
    that ends up on our shores. We need comprehensive action.
        But today, we have an opportunity to build on our
    foundation of bipartisan, bicameral efforts to strengthen the
    NOAA Marine Debris Program and enhance the work of the Marine
    Debris Foundation. The bipartisan Save Our Seas 2.0 Act, which
    I worked on with the late Congressman Don Young--may he rest in
    peace--and Senators Sullivan, Whitehouse, and Menendez, is the
    most comprehensive legislation Congress has ever passed to
    address the marine debris that threatens coastal ecosystems and
    communities.
        The bill fundamentally changed the United States' domestic
    response to marine debris by creating the Marine Debris
    Foundation to support NOAA's work, advance the removal and
    prevention of plastic waste, and establish a pilot program to
    provide incentives for the proper disposal of marine debris
    that is collected at sea.
        The NOAA Marine Debris Program leads America's response to
    address marine debris. The program relies on provisions in the
    Marine Debris Act and NOAA's annual appropriations language to
    fund and undertake collaborative initiatives with other groups.
    The current provisions, however, do not effectively permit the
    NOAA program to assist and collaborate with foreign
    governments, international organizations, tribal groups, and
    other organizations with the specific skills required to
    achieve the goal of the Marine Debris Act.
        As co-chairs of the House Oceans Caucus, Representative
    Gonzalez-Colon and I introduced the House version of the Save
    Our Seas 2.0 Amendments Act. This bill would amend the Save our
    Seas 2.0 Act and the Marine Debris Act to provide NOAA with the
    flexibility it needs to deliver Federal resources and enter
    into cooperative agreements to conduct marine debris prevention
    and cleanup.
        The ocean is resilient, and we can help it heal, but we
    cannot afford to wait. We have significant work ahead of us to
    clean up and prevent marine debris. And the Save Our Seas 2.0
    Amendment Act continues to build on our bipartisan foundation
    to protect the ocean. Because most of the planet is covered by
    ocean, a healthier ocean means a healthier planet.
        I want to thank my colleague and co-chair on the House
    Oceans Caucus, Representative Gonzalez-Colon, for her
    partnership on this bill, and our Senate colleagues, Senator
    Dan Sullivan and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse.
        I urge all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill
    to strengthen the Federal response to marine debris and to
    continue to make ocean health a priority for future
    generations.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. I
    yield back.

        Mr. Bentz. Thank you, and I will now introduce our next
    panel: Mr. Stephen Guertin of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service, Deputy Director; Ms. Nancy Wallace, Director of the
    Marine Debris Program at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration; Mr. Brian Nesvik, Director of the Wyoming Game
    and Fish Department; Mr. Nathan Roberts, Associate Professor of
    Biology, College of the Ozarks; Mr. Christopher Servheen, from
    Missoula, Montana; and Mrs. Karli Johnson, a sixth-generation
    rancher from Choteau, Montana.
        Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules,
    they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but their
    entire statement will appear in their hearing record.
        To begin your testimony, please press the top button on the
    microphone. We use timing lights. When you begin, the light
    will turn green. When you have 1 minute remaining, the light
    will turn yellow. At the end of 5 minutes, the light will turn
    red. And if you keep talking, we will start hammering on this
    microphone like this. That is a signal to stop, I will ask you
    to please complete your statement.
        I will also allow all witnesses to testify before Member
    questioning.
        With that, I now recognize Mr. Guertin for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF STEPHEN GUERTIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR POLICY, U.S.
               FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, WASHINGTON, DC

        Mr. Guertin. Good afternoon, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member
    Huffman, and members of the Subcommittee. I am Steve Guertin,
    Deputy Director for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Thank
    you for the opportunity to testify before you today on three
    bills related to the Endangered Species Act.

        I would like to take a moment to acknowledge that this year
    is the 50th anniversary of the ESA. The ESA is one of the
    nation's most consequential environmental laws. The purpose of
    the law enacted by Congress is to conserve threatened and
    endangered species and to conserve the ecosystems upon which
    they depend.

        Over the past 50 years, 99 percent of the species protected
    by the ESA have been saved from extinction. More than 100
    species of plants and animals have been delisted based on
    recovery or reclassified from endangered to threatened, based
    on improved conservation status. This includes relatively
    unknown species like the small Oregon chub, and iconic, well-
    known species such as the nation's symbol, the American bald
    eagle. Hundreds of additional species are stable or improving,
    and the ESA also facilitates proactive conservation of
    imperiled species by trying to help avoid listing them under
    the ESA in the first place.

        I would also like to acknowledge the important role our
    state fish and game agencies have in these larger recovery
    strategies. And there are many good instances of strong
    coordination between the Service and our colleagues in the
    state agencies, and we will continue our work going forward.

        For most threatened and endangered species, recovery is a
    long process, recovering coordinated efforts and commitments
    from many partners and stakeholders sustained for several
    years. Certainly, people in the American West have experienced
    this reality with wolves and grizzly bears. The fact that the
    Service has previously developed rules to delist certain
    populations of these apex species is remarkable. It reflects
    the results of decades of collaboration among many
    stakeholders, across broad landscapes, and over multiple
    states.

        I would also like to note that when the Service issues
    rules that list or delist certain populations of species, it
    follows the ESA's requirement to use the best available
    science. The Service follows all relevant aspects of the ESA
    and its implementing regulations, as well as other applicable
    law. It is not uncommon for the Service's listing or delisting
    rules to be challenged in court. The judicial systems become
    part of the body of law interpreting the ESA, and the Service
    adjusts its approach accordingly. It is within that context
    that the Service opposes the three bills before us today.

        H.R. 764, the Trust the Science Act, would direct the
    Department to reissue a final rule delisting the gray wolf
    within 60 days, and exclude its reissuance from judicial
    review.

        H.R. 1245, the Grizzly Bear State Management Act, would
    direct the Department to reissue a final rule within 180 days
    to delist the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population of
    grizzly bears, and exclude that from judicial review.

        H.R. 1419, the Comprehensive Grizzly Bear Management Act of
    2023, would direct the Department to issue a new final rule
    within 180 days to delist the Northern Continental Divide
    Ecosystem population of grizzly bears, and exclude it from
    judicial review.

        Each of these bills would put Congress in control of
    delisting species without the benefit of using the best
    available scientific and commercial information, and without
    considering current conditions. They supersede ongoing
    scientific analysis being conducted by the Service regarding
    the status of wolf and grizzly bear populations right now.
    These current analyses are being conducted consistent with the
    requirements of the law. While each of these bills is unique,
    they share the common thread of circumventing the scientific
    processes currently underway.

        We believe that the administrative processes prescribed by
    the ESA and the Administrative Procedures Act, including public
    participation, is the best path for adding or removing species
    from the Endangered Species Act. These processes under the law
    ensure that the integrity of the important goals of the ESA
    envisioned by Congress 50 years ago are maintained.

        We appreciate the opportunity to testify before this
    Subcommittee today, and look forward to discussing these bills
    and the Service's views going forward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Guertin follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Stephen Guertin, Deputy Director for Policy,
           U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior
                     on H.R. 764, H.R. 1245, and H.R. 1419

    Introduction

        Good morning, Subcommittee Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman,
    and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Stephen Guertin, Deputy Director
    for Policy for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) within the
    Department of the Interior (Department). I appreciate the opportunity
    to testify before you today on three bills related to the Endangered
    Species Act (ESA).

        The Service's mission is working with others to conserve, protect,
    and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the
    continuing benefit of the American people. For more than 150 years, the
    Service has collaborated with partners across the country and around
    the world to work to fulfill this mission. To conserve our Nation's
    natural resources, including threatened and endangered species,
    migratory birds, certain marine mammals, and certain fish, the Service
    administers and enforces an array of environmental laws enacted by the
    Congress, including the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration
    Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Lacey Act, and ESA. These statutes are
    the foundation of the Service's mission, and they mandate and guide our
    work on behalf of the American people.

        The ESA, which has an important nexus to the legislation being
    considered in today's hearing, turns 50 years old this year. The ESA is
    a bedrock conservation law that plays a critical role in preventing the
    extinction of imperiled species, promotes the recovery of wildlife, and
    helps conserve the habitats upon which they depend. In 1988, the late
    Congressman John Dingell, a sponsor of the original ESA, wrote the
    following about the passage of the law in 1973:

            The goal Congress set then was unparalleled in all of history.
            Our country resolved to put an end to the decades--indeed,
            centuries--of neglect that had resulted in the extinction of
            the passenger pigeon and the Carolina parakeet, and the near
            extinction of the bison and many other species with which we
            share this great land. If it were possible to avoid causing the
            extinction of another species, we resolved to do exactly that .
            . . When Congress passed the Endangered Species Act, it set a
            clear public policy that we would not be indifferent to the
            destruction of nature's bounty.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Rohlf, Daniel J. ``Forward.'' The Endangered Species Act: A
    Guide to Its Protections and Implementation. Stanford Environmental Law
    Society, 1989, pp.1.

        Congressman Dingell's statement remains just as powerful and
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    relevant today.

        The ESA has been highly effective in many respects. It is credited
    with saving a remarkable 99 percent of listed species from extinction.
    It has facilitated proactive conservation of imperiled species before
    the need to list them under the law. And it has also laid the
    foundation for recovery of listed species. For most threatened and
    endangered species, recovery is a long process, requiring coordinated
    efforts and commitments from many stakeholders sustained for many
    years. Thus far, more than 100 species of plants and animals have been
    delisted based on recovery or reclassified from endangered to
    threatened based on improved conservation status. Many of these
    successes are due to coordinated efforts and collaboration with
    partners. For example, in January 2023, through a partnership with the
    Department of Defense, the Service delisted the San Clemente Bell's
    sparrow and four San Clemente Island plant species. Other examples of
    recovered and delisted species include: the snail darter (southeastern
    fish); Monito gecko (reptile in Puerto Rico); Louisiana black bear;
    brown pelican (southeastern states); Oregon chub (fish); Columbian
    white-tailed deer (Oregon); Aleutian Canada goose (Alaska and
    northwestern states); Kirtland's warbler (upper midwestern songbird);
    interior least tern (spans 18 states in its migration from Texas to
    Montana); Virginia northern flying squirrel; Delmarva Peninsula fox
    squirrel; Hawaiian hawk, and, in the lower 48 states, the bald eagle.
    Just last month, the Service published a proposed rule to delist the
    wood stork, a large wading bird that inhabits a number of southeastern
    states. Hundreds of additional species are stable or improving thanks
    to the collaborative actions of Federal agencies, State and local
    governments, Tribes, conservation organizations, sportsmen and women,
    private landowners, and other private citizens.
        The Service has developed a number of programs that encourage
    voluntary conservation of listed species and declining species, while
    also providing regulatory predictability to landowners. These programs
    include Safe Harbor Agreements, Voluntary Candidate Conservation
    Agreements, and Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances.
    Removing identified threats to a declining species can head off the
    need to list the species. The Service recently proposed modifications
    to permitting under section 10 of the ESA to encourage and facilitate
    more participation in these programs.
        The ESA enables the protection and restoration of a wide array of
    threatened and endangered species, from the smallest, most unassuming
    plants to keystone predators. When it comes to large carnivores like
    grizzly bears or wolves, coordination across all levels of government,
    Tribes, and stakeholders becomes even more important to our shared
    success. Working toward recovery of these apex species brings
    challenges, but we have also seen substantial progress. The Service is
    committed to recovery of these species and engaging with States,
    Tribes, and other stakeholders to ensure regulatory mechanisms and
    conservation tools are in place to protect the species into the future.
    We continue to work with our many partners to find collaborative
    solutions to work toward effective co-existence and help address human-
    wildlife conflicts.
        We appreciate the Subcommittee's interest in the ESA and the
    Service's work to implement the law. We offer the following comments on
    the three ESA-related bills under consideration today and look forward
    to discussing our views with the Subcommittee.
    H.R. 764, Trust the Science Act

        H.R. 764 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to reissue a
    final rule delisting the gray wolf within 60 days of enactment of the
    bill. The legislation would also exclude reissuance of the final rule
    from judicial review.
        Since 2007, the Service has published several different rules to
    delist different populations of gray wolves due to recovery. Prior
    delisting rules have considered populations in the Western Great Lakes,
    Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM), and contiguous United States. These
    rules have been litigated, and most were vacated by courts. Wolves in
    most of the Northern Rocky Mountains (Montana, Idaho, Northern Utah,
    Eastern Washington, and Eastern Oregon) have been delisted due to
    recovery and under State and Tribal management since 2011, and in
    Wyoming since 2017. In 2020, the Service published a final rule
    delisting gray wolves in the remaining lower 48 states and Mexico. The
    rule was litigated, then vacated by the U.S. District Court for the
    Northern District of California in February 2022. Following that
    ruling, gray wolves outside the NRM are once again protected under the
    ESA. In January 2023, the Court temporarily stayed appeals on this
    decision until February 2024. During this time, the Service is updating
    the status review for the gray wolf throughout the lower 48 states,
    commencing a stakeholder engagement effort, and preparing a new
    proposed rule concerning the listing status of gray wolves in the lower
    48 states. The Service intends to submit this proposed rule to the
    Office of the Federal Register in February 2024.
        Separately, over the last couple of years, the States of Montana
    and Idaho passed laws with the objective of reducing wolf populations
    through hunting, trapping, and other means. In 2021, the Service
    received two petitions to list gray wolves in the Northern Rocky
    Mountains and Western United States, and in September 2021, the Service
    published substantial 90-day findings on the petitions. The Service is
    currently conducting robust scientific analyses to determine if the
    petitioned actions are warranted.
        The Service opposes H.R. 764. The Service is in the process of
    conducting two separate actions regarding the listing status of gray
    wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Western United States, and
    in the lower 48 states. We are fulfilling our statutory
    responsibilities to utilize the best available scientific and
    commercial data in making these determinations and conducting these
    actions. We believe that the administrative rulemaking process
    prescribed by the ESA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),
    including public participation, is the best path for adding or removing
    species from the protections of the ESA. This legislation would
    circumvent that statutory process.
    H.R. 1245, Grizzly Bear State Management Act of 2023

        H.R. 1245 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to reissue a
    final rule within 180 days of enactment of the bill to delist the
    Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) population of grizzly bears,
    without regard to any other provision of law that applies to the
    issuance of the final rule. This legislation would also prevent
    judicial review, both of the reissuance of the final rule and of the
    bill's language barring it.
        The grizzly bear is currently listed as threatened under the ESA in
    the lower 48 states. In 2007 and 2017, the Service finalized rules to
    establish the GYE distinct population segment (DPS) and delist it due
    to recovery. Courts vacated both rules, reinstating ESA protections.
        The States of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho separately petitioned the
    Service to delist grizzly bears in 2022, with each petition pertaining
    to a different set of grizzly bear populations in the United States.
    The Service announced 90-day findings on these petitions in February
    2023. The findings included substantial 90-day findings for Wyoming's
    petition regarding the GYE and Montana's petition regarding the
    Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE), and a not-substantial 90-
    day finding for the Idaho petition, which pertained to the entirety of
    the lower 48 states. The Service has initiated a comprehensive status
    review of the grizzly bear in the GYE and NCDE based on the best
    scientific and commercial data available to inform 12-month findings on
    whether the removal of ESA protections for grizzly bears in either of
    these ecosystems are warranted. If those findings result in proposing
    one or more DPS for delisting, the Service will consider those in the
    context of the ongoing recovery for the rest of the population in the
    larger listed entity. In those cases, removing ESA protections would
    then be initiated through a separate rulemaking process, with
    additional public notice and comment.
        Grizzly bear recovery and conservation is complex, requiring
    coordination among Federal agencies, States, Tribes, and stakeholders.
    The Service appreciates the States' historical commitments and
    partnerships to recover grizzly bears, particularly through conflict-
    prevention efforts that have been effective in reducing human-caused
    mortality. We will fully evaluate all potential threats to the bears,
    and associated State regulatory mechanisms, in detail when we conduct
    the status assessments and make the 12-month findings.
        The Service opposes H.R. 1245. The Service is currently conducting
    a status review to inform a 12-month finding on whether the removal of
    ESA protections for grizzly bears in the GYE is warranted, and is
    carefully fulfilling our statutory responsibilities to follow the best
    scientific and commercial data available in making this determination.
    This legislation would circumvent the rulemaking process under the ESA,
    and discount the integral scientific review process currently underway.
    We believe that the administrative process prescribed by the ESA and
    the APA, including public participation, is the best path for adding or
    removing species from the protections of the ESA.
    H.R. 1419, Comprehensive Grizzly Bear Management Act of 2023

        H.R. 1419 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to issue a
    final rule within 180 days of enactment of the bill that would delist
    the NCDE population of grizzly bears, without regard to any other
    provision of law that applies to the issuance of such rule. The
    legislation would also bar both the issuance of the final rule and that
    section of the bill from judicial review.
        As noted in our testimony regarding H.R. 1245, over the last
    several years, the Service has taken a series of actions regarding
    grizzly bear conservation and the status of specific DPSs. In 2022, the
    States of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho separately petitioned the Service
    to delist different grizzly bear populations. The Service's February
    2023 announcement of our 90-day findings on these petitions included
    substantial findings for Montana's petition regarding the NCDE. The
    Service has initiated a comprehensive status review of the grizzly bear
    in the NCDE based on the best available scientific and commercial data.
    The status review will inform 12-month findings on whether the removal
    of ESA protections for grizzly bears in either the NCDE or GYE
    ecosystems is warranted. If those findings result in proposing one or
    more DPSs for delisting, the Service will consider those in the context
    of the ongoing recovery for the rest of the population in the larger
    listed entity. If that is the case, removing ESA protections would then
    be initiated through a separate rulemaking process, with additional
    public notice and comment.
        Grizzly bear recovery and conservation is complex and requires
    substantial coordination among Federal agencies, States, Tribes, and
    stakeholders, and the Service appreciates past collaboration on this
    work. The impact of recently enacted State laws and regulations
    affecting these two grizzly bear populations needs to be evaluated. We
    will fully evaluate all potential threats, and associated state
    regulatory mechanisms, in detail when we conduct the status assessments
    and make the 12-month findings.
        The Service opposes H.R. 1419. Delisting of the NCDE has never been
    proposed or finalized by the Service. Under the ESA, if the Service
    were to determine that delisting is warranted, the subsequent
    regulatory process would include a proposed rule, with an opportunity
    for public comment, followed by a final rule or a withdrawal of the
    proposed rule. Further, as stated previously, the Service is currently
    conducting a status review of NCDE and GYE DPSs to inform 12-month
    findings on whether the removal of ESA protections for grizzly bears in
    DPS is warranted. We are carefully fulfilling our legal duties to
    follow the best available scientific and commercial data in making this
    determination. H.R. 1419 would circumvent existing statutory,
    regulatory, and scientific processes, including the agency's thorough,
    science-based assessment on grizzly bears that is currently underway.
    Under the ESA, it is the responsibility of the Service, as the Federal
    agency with primary authority and scientific expertise regarding
    endangered and threatened species, to make scientific biological
    assessments and decisions. We believe that the administrative process
    prescribed by the ESA and APA, including public participation, is the
    best path for adding or removing species from the protections of the
    ESA.
    Conclusion

        We appreciate the Subcommittee's interest in the ESA and the
    Service's work to implement this critical conservation law. Although we
    oppose the three bills being considered today, we support the overall
    goal of recovering wolves and grizzly bears. We are committed to
    continuing our work in partnership with all stakeholders toward that
    goal.
        Wildlife, fish, plants, and their habitats face many stressors.
    Conserving imperiled species through the ESA helps alleviate some of
    the stressors because of the broad benefits to other wildlife that
    depend on the same ecosystems. Similarly, conservation work under the
    ESA benefits people and the economy. Healthy ecosystems support
    hunting, fishing, outdoor recreation, and provide clean air and water.
        We look forward to continued communication with the Subcommittee
    regarding the recovery process and status for wolves and grizzly bears,
    and all aspects of the Service's work.

                                     ______

        Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Guertin, and now I recognize Ms.
    Wallace for 5 minutes.

      STATEMENT OF NANCY WALLACE, MARINE DEBRIS PROGRAM DIRECTOR,
    NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, SILVER SPRING,
                                MARYLAND

        Ms. Wallace. Good morning, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member
    Huffman, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for this
    opportunity to testify on the issue of marine debris.
        My name is Nancy Wallace, and I am the Director of the
    Marine Debris Program within the Office of Response and
    Restoration at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, or NOAA. Today, I will focus my testimony on
    implementation of the Save our Seas 2.0 Act, and the changes
    proposed in the Save Our Seas 2.0 Amendments Act, as well as a
    brief overview of the NOAA Marine Debris Program. Please refer
    to my full written testimony for more information on these
    topics.
        Marine debris is a global problem. It ranges from large,
    abandoned vessels to lost fishing gear, and the items we find
    littered on our beaches, including plastic bags, bottles, and
    cigarette butts, as well as the smallest microplastics. A
    recent study estimated that in 2016 as much as 23 million
    metric tons of plastic waste entered aquatic ecosystems from
    land around the world.
        If current practices continue, the amount of plastic
    discharged into the ocean could reach up to 53 million metric
    tons per year by 2030. Despite a well-developed formal waste
    management system, the United States is a leading contributor
    to this problem, releasing an estimated 1 to 2 million metric
    tons of plastic waste to the environment per year.
        The NOAA Marine Debris Program is authorized by Congress as
    the Federal lead to work on marine debris through the Marine
    Debris Act. We lead national efforts to research, prevent, and
    reduce the impacts of marine debris. The Marine Debris Program
    supports projects in partnership with state and local agencies,
    tribes, non-governmental organizations, academia, and industry.
    NOAA also engages with the Department of state and
    international organizations on global marine debris efforts.
        NOAA is the lead agency for Title 1 of the Save Our Seas
    2.0 Act, which was signed into law on December 18, 2020. This
    law enhances the United States domestic programs to address
    marine debris, and requires NOAA to undertake several actions,
    including establishing a Marine Debris Foundation and
    completing a number of studies and reports. The Marine Debris
    Foundation is charged with augmenting the efforts of NOAA to
    assess, prevent, reduce, and remove marine debris.
        I am pleased to share that on April 6, 2022, NOAA announced
    the inaugural Board of Directors for the new Marine Debris
    Foundation. These 12 individuals bring a diverse range of
    expertise, experience, and perspectives. The Foundation will be
    an important partner to NOAA, and we look forward to working
    with them.
        The NOAA Marine Debris Program is making significant
    progress on completing all of the required studies and reports
    in the Act. I am happy to answer any specific questions about
    these reports, but refer you to my written testimony for more
    in-depth updates.
        In particular, though, I would like to highlight that two
    of the required studies and reports have already been
    completed. NOAA funded the National Academies of Sciences,
    Engineering, and Medicine to conduct a study on the
    contributions of the United States to global ocean plastic
    waste. The study was released in December 2021, and offers a
    very comprehensive assessment of the problem.
        NOAA also worked with the Rhode Island Marine Trade
    Association to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
    a nationwide vessel recycling program, using a pilot project in
    Rhode Island as a model. We published a report in February 2023
    that summarizes the completed study, identifies challenges
    associated with recycling fiberglass vessels, and outlines the
    steps necessary to build a viable nationwide recycling program.
        Building off the enhancements established by the Save Our
    Seas 2.0 Act, the Amendments Act would provide technical and
    administrative corrections to the operation of the Marine
    Debris Foundation, and enable NOAA to provide additional
    support to the Foundation.
        The Amendments Act would also amend the Marine Debris Act,
    providing more flexibility for NOAA to enter into different
    types of agreements. It would also allow a discretionary cost
    share waiver for grants to address severe marine debris events.
        While the problem of marine debris has existed for decades,
    and has received considerable attention from Congress, NOAA,
    and other partners, there is still much work to be done as we
    address the impacts of marine debris on the environment, marine
    species, and human health and safety. NOAA looks forward to
    continuing to work with the Committee on this issue.
        Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. I would
    be happy to answer any questions you may have.

        [The prepared statement of Ms. Wallace follows:]
       Prepared Statement of Nancy Wallace, Director of the Marine Debris
      Program Office of Response and Restoration, National Ocean Service,
                National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
                          U.S. Department of Commerce
                 on H.R. 886, Save Our Seas 2.0 Amendments Act

    Introduction

        Good morning, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and members
    of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to testify on the
    issue of marine debris and H.R. 886, Save Our Seas 2.0 Amendments Act.
    My name is Nancy Wallace, and I am the Director of the Marine Debris
    Program, within the National Ocean Service Office of Response and
    Restoration, at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce.
        Marine Debris, as defined by the Marine Debris Act, is ``any
    persistent solid material that is manufactured or processed and
    directly or indirectly, intentionally, or unintentionally, disposed of
    or abandoned into the marine environment or the Great Lakes (33 U.S.C.
    Sec. 1956(3)).'' Marine debris ranges from lost or abandoned fishing
    gear and vessels, to plastics, glass, metal, and rubber of any size,
    and is an on-going international problem that impacts our natural
    resources. The NOAA Marine Debris Program (MDP) leads national efforts
    to research, prevent, and reduce the impacts of marine debris.
    Authorized by the Marine Debris Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. Sec. 1951 et
    seq., ``Marine Debris Act''), the program supports marine debris
    projects in partnership with state and local agencies, tribes, non-
    governmental organizations, academia, and industry. NOAA spearheads
    national research efforts, engages with the Department of State and
    international organizations on global marine debris efforts, and works
    to change behavior through outreach and education initiatives.
        NOAA recognizes that marine debris is a global problem and that
    there is no `one size fits all' solution to addressing this issue on
    national and international scales. A recent study estimated that in
    2016, as much as 23 million metric tons of plastic waste entered
    aquatic ecosystems from land around the world (Borrelle et al., 2020).
    This number may seem huge, but it does not include marine debris items
    not made of plastic, or ocean-based marine debris, such as lost fishing
    gear and vessels. That number has also likely increased with time. If
    current practices continue, the amount of plastic discharged into the
    ocean could reach up to 53 million metric tons per year by 2030
    (Borrelle et al. 2020, Jambeck and Johnsen 2015, Pauly and Zeller
    2016). The United States alone, despite a well-developed formal waste
    management system, contributed approximately 1 million to 2 million
    metric tons of plastic waste to the environment at home and abroad in
    2016 (Law et al. 2020). It is clear that there is still much work to be
    done to find solutions to marine debris on both the national and
    international levels.
        Today, I will focus my testimony on the Marine Debris Act, the
    impacts of marine debris in the ocean and Great Lakes, the program
    pillars of NOAA's MDP, implementation of the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act, and
    H.R. 886, Save Our Seas 2.0 Amendments Act.
    Marine Debris Impacts

        Marine debris causes significant threats not only to ocean and
    coastal environments and wildlife, but also to human health, safety,
    and navigation. Each year, countless marine animals, sea turtles, and
    seabirds are injured or die because of entanglement in or ingestion of
    marine debris. Additionally, debris can scour, break, smother, or
    otherwise damage important marine habitat, such as coral reefs and
    tidal wetlands, that serve as the basis of marine ecosystems and are
    critical to the survival of many important species. Derelict fishing
    gear, such as nets and crab pots, can continue to capture fish--
    something we refer to as ``ghost fishing''--for years after they are
    lost. Not only does this affect the species that end up as bycatch in
    the lost gear by reducing the abundance and reproductive capacity of
    the population, but it also causes fishermen economic losses. Marine
    debris can facilitate the introduction and range expansion of invasive
    species.
        Marine debris also creates navigation hazards. Ropes, plastics,
    derelict fishing gear, and other objects can become entangled in vessel
    propellers or clog water intakes, causing operational problems. Larger
    items, such as lost shipping containers, can become collision dangers.
    Such interactions with marine debris involve costly engine repairs and
    disablement. Abandoned vessels are another navigational threat in our
    coastal waterways that have become a serious marine debris problem in
    many states. The dangerous and costly impacts of these different types
    of marine debris affect both the recreational boating and commercial
    shipping communities.
    Marine Debris Act

        The MDP is authorized by Congress as the federal lead to work on
    marine debris through the Marine Debris Act. The Act authorizes the
    NOAA Administrator, through the MDP, to ``identify, determine sources
    of, assess, prevent, reduce, and remove marine debris and address the
    adverse impacts of marine debris on the economy of the United States,
    marine environment, and navigation safety.'' (33 U.S.C. Sec. 1952). The
    Act further directs the Administrator, through the MDP, to ``provide
    national and regional coordination to assist States, Indian tribes, and
    regional organizations,'' ``undertake efforts to reduce the adverse
    impacts of lost and discarded fishing gear on living marine resources
    and navigation safety,'' ``undertake outreach and education activities
    for the public and other stakeholders'' on marine debris issues,
    develop ``interagency plans for the timely response to events,'' and
    ``enter into cooperative agreements and contracts and provide financial
    assistance in the form of grants for projects to accomplish the
    purpose'' of the Act. 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1952(b)-(d). The 2012 amendments
    (P.L. 112-213) directed NOAA to address and determine severe marine
    debris events. The Save Our Seas Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-265), which
    reauthorized and amended the Marine Debris Act, directed NOAA to
    ``promote international action, as appropriate, to reduce the incidence
    of marine debris'' and, in the case of a severe marine debris event, to
    ``assist in the cleanup and response required by the severe marine
    debris event'' or conduct such other activity as NOAA deems
    appropriate.
    The NOAA Marine Debris Program

        The MDP, guided by the Marine Debris Act, is focused around six
    program pillars: prevention, removal, research, monitoring and
    detection, response, and coordination.
    Prevention
        One of the most effective ways to reduce marine debris is through
    prevention, which requires that boaters, fishermen, industry, and the
    general public have the knowledge and training to change the behaviors
    that create marine debris. NOAA's robust outreach and education
    activities focus on improving awareness and changing behavior through
    developing and disseminating public information, and by partnering with
    and providing funding support to external groups including academic
    partners and nonprofit groups.
    Removal
        While prevention is essential to stemming the input of new debris
    into the ocean, removal is necessary to diminish the impacts of debris
    already introduced into the ocean and Great Lakes. The MDP provides
    funding through its removal grants competitive funding opportunity. The
    program also provides support to the annual International Coastal
    Cleanup.
    Research
        A key tenet of the MDP is research. Congress recognized the need
    for research that determines the sources and helps us understand the
    adverse impacts of debris on the marine environment and navigation
    safety (33 U.S.C. Sec. 1952(b)(1)). Since its establishment, the MDP
    has funded research projects that help expand our understanding of
    debris by investigating where debris comes from, how it moves through
    the environment, and how it impacts wildlife and our ocean, waterways,
    and Great Lakes.
    Monitoring and Detection
        The MDP supports projects that generate monitoring and detection
    data, involve the public, incorporate innovative technologies, and
    provide guidance to the marine debris community. Monitoring and
    detection efforts improve our understanding of the scope, scale, and
    distribution of marine debris in the environment, as well as provides
    critical data on the types and amount of debris, which can inform
    management practices and prevention. In particular, the MDP maintains
    the NOAA Marine Debris Monitoring and Assessment Project, an initiative
    that helps answer fundamental questions about the types of marine
    debris found on shorelines.
    Response
        Coastal storms and natural disasters are another source of marine
    debris that create hazards in our inland and coastal waters. NOAA has
    responded to emergency events including Hurricanes Florence, Michael,
    Harvey, Irma, and Maria, and Typhoon Yutu. The MDP also works before
    disasters strike to help communities prepare to respond to marine
    debris. As part of this work, the MDP partners with coastal states and
    U.S. territories to develop state/territory-specific marine debris
    emergency response guides. These guides outline the processes and roles
    of each partner for responding to and recovering from a severe marine
    debris event, such as a hurricane.
    Regional Coordination
        The MDP works with local communities to address region-specific
    marine debris issues. The MDP has 11 Regional Coordinators working in
    Alaska, the Pacific Northwest, California, the Pacific Islands, the
    Gulf of Mexico, Florida, the Caribbean, the Southeast, the Mid-
    Atlantic, the Northeast, and the Great Lakes to support projects and
    partnerships with state and local agencies, tribes, nongovernmental
    organizations, academia, and industry that addresses marine debris
    locally.
        The MDP Regional Coordinators also work with partners to develop
    and implement regional marine debris action plans. These action plans
    focus on long-term solutions to the causes and impacts of marine debris
    in the regions, as well as outline operational best practices and data
    collection protocols. The purpose of these action plans is to aid
    states in preventing and reducing debris and mitigating coastal
    impacts.
    National Coordination
        As authorized in the Marine Debris Act, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1954, NOAA
    is the chair of the Interagency Marine Debris Coordinating Committee
    (IMDCC), a multi-agency body that is responsible for streamlining the
    federal government's efforts to address marine debris. Representative
    agencies coordinate a comprehensive program of marine debris activities
    and report to Congress every two years on research priorities,
    monitoring techniques, educational programs, and regulatory action.
    Members include: the Departments of Energy, Interior, Justice, and
    State; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; the U.S. Coast Guard;
    the U.S. Navy; the Marine Mammal Commission; the National Aeronautics
    and Space Administration; the National Science Foundation; and the U.S.
    Agency for International Development.
        In addition to the IMDCC, the program also partners with other
    agencies on funded projects. For example, the MDP provides support for
    missions to remove marine debris from Papahanaumokuakea Marine National
    Monument. Project partners for these missions have included the
    National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Papahanaumokuakea Marine Debris
    Project, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State of Hawaii, and other
    NOAA programs. In Fiscal Year 2021, the mission removed 118,400 pounds
    of derelict fishing nets and nearly 5,300 pounds of plastic and other
    debris.
    International Engagement
        There are many ongoing international, multilateral, and bilateral
    initiatives to understand and combat the issue of marine debris across
    the world. The MDP works closely with the Department of State and other
    U.S. national agencies to provide input and leadership on the issue,
    and also collaborates with other countries to research, prevent, and
    remove marine debris.
    Implementation of the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act

        The Save Our Seas (``SOS'') 2.0 Act (P.L. 116-224) was signed into
    law on December 18, 2020. The Act contains three titles that address:
    (1) the United States' domestic programs to combat marine debris, (2)
    international engagement to combat marine debris, and (3) domestic
    infrastructure to prevent marine debris. The lead agencies with
    responsibilities under the Titles of the Act are NOAA, the Department
    of State, and the Environmental Protection Agency, respectively.

        Significant components of the SOS 2.0 Act within NOAA's
    jurisdiction include:

         Clarifying the scope of the Marine Debris Act to include
                waters in the jurisdiction of the United States, the high
                seas, and waters in the jurisdiction of other countries
                (Sec. 101);

         Establishing a Marine Debris Foundation (Subtitle B);

         Establishing a Genius Prize for Save Our Seas Innovation
                (Subtitle C); and

         Requiring several new reports and studies on different
                aspects of marine debris (Subtitle D), including the
                sources and impacts of derelict fishing gear, innovative
                uses of plastic waste, microfiber pollution, vessel
                recycling, and the United States' contribution to global
                plastic pollution, as well as a pilot program for providing
                incentives to fishermen to collect and dispose of plastic
                found at sea.

    Marine Debris Foundation

        The SOS 2.0 Act (33 U.S.C. Sec. 4211 et. seq.) also established the
    Marine Debris Foundation as a charitable and nonprofit organization (33
    U.S.C. Sec. 4211). The Marine Debris Foundation is charged with
    augmenting the efforts of NOAA to assess, prevent, reduce, and remove
    marine debris, and with taking actions to support other Federal
    agencies, and other entities, to address marine debris (33 U.S.C.
    Sec. 4211(b)). The SOS 2.0 Act specifies that the Under Secretary of
    Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere (NOAA Administrator) is responsible
    for appointing, and serves on, the Board of Directors of the Marine
    Debris Foundation (33 U.S.C. Sec. 4212(a)).
        On April 6, 2022, NOAA announced the inaugural Board of Directors
    for the new Marine Debris Foundation. The appointment of the inaugural
    Board of Directors was approved by the Secretary of Commerce,
    consistent with the Presidential signing statement for the Save Our
    Seas 2.0 Act. The 12 new Board members bring a diverse range of
    expertise, experience, and perspectives. The Foundation will be an
    important partner to NOAA and other entities in the United States who
    are tackling the immense challenges that marine debris poses to nature,
    human health, and the U.S. economy.
    Studies and Reports

        The SOS 2.0 Act requires the MDP to undertake several studies and
    reports as described below. The MDP has completed or is in the process
    of completing the studies and reports using several avenues, including
    existing grant-funded projects, new grant awards, new contracts, and
    collaboration with other federal agencies.
        Section 131 requires the IMDCC to submit a report to Congress on
    innovative uses of plastic waste in consumer products. As vice-chair of
    the IMDCC, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken the lead
    on implementation of this report.
        Section 132 requires the IMDCC to submit a report to Congress on
    microfiber pollution. The MDP is working closely with the EPA on this
    report. The draft report, and the five-year federal action plan
    contained within it, went out for a 30-day public comment period on
    September 15, 2022. The report is undergoing interagency review.
        Section 133 requires NOAA to fund the National Academies of
    Sciences, Engineering and Medicine to conduct a study on the
    contributions of the United States to global ocean plastic waste. This
    study was released in December 2021, and the MDP is working under our
    current authorities on implementation of actions and activities that
    address the report recommendations.
        Section 135 requires NOAA to submit a report to Congress on the
    sources and impacts of derelict fishing gear. This report is under
    development.
        Section 136 requires NOAA to conduct a study to determine the
    feasibility of a nationwide vessel recycling program, using a pilot
    project in Rhode Island as a model. On February 8, 2023, the MDP
    published a report, Recycling Opportunities for Abandoned, Derelict,
    and End-of-Life Recreational Vessels, that summarizes the completed
    study. The report, created by the Rhode Island Marine Trades
    Association Foundation in partnership with the MDP and National Marine
    Sanctuary Foundation, identifies challenges associated with recycling
    fiberglass vessels and outlines the steps necessary to build a viable
    nationwide recycling program.
        Section 137 requires NOAA to establish a pilot program to assess
    the feasibility and advisability of providing incentives to fishermen
    to collect and dispose of plastic found at sea. Through the MDP's FY22
    competitive grant funding opportunity, we awarded funding to
    Mississippi Commercial Fisheries United, Inc. to develop and implement
    a pilot program. The project will conclude in August 2025, and we will
    work with the grantee to document lessons learned on the project's
    feasibility and advisability.
        Section 307 requires the EPA and the IMDCC to conduct a study on
    minimizing the creation of new plastic waste. The EPA has taken the
    lead on implementation of this report.
    Genius Prize

        The SOS 2.0 Act also establishes a Genius Prize for Save Our Seas
    Innovation and authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to offer to enter
    into an agreement with the Marine Debris Foundation to administer the
    prize competition. The FY 24 Budget includes funding to support a
    Genius Prize for marine debris.
    H.R. 886, Save Our Seas 2.0 Amendments Act

        If enacted, H.R. 886, Save Our Seas 2.0 Amendments Act, would amend
    the SOS 2.0 Act by:

         Providing technical and administrative corrections to the
                operation of the Marine Debris Foundation. For example, it
                would change the title of the ``first officer or employee
                appointed by the Board'' from ``chief operating officer''
                to ``chief executive officer'' to align with common
                terminology used in the non-profit sector.

         Adding the U.S. Agency for International Development as a
                named agency for consultation before removal of a Director,
                and would clarify that the Board shall submit
                recommendations on new Directors to the Under Secretary.

         Adding clarification on the location of the Marine Debris
                Foundation's principal office and a new directive on
                development and implementation of ``best practices for
                conducting outreach to Indian Tribes.''

         Aligning the Marine Debris Foundation's operation into
                alignment with other Congressionally chartered non-profits
                and remove restrictions that inhibited the Marine Debris
                Foundation from effectively beginning operations.

         Authorizing up to twelve percent of federal funds
                appropriated to the Department of Commerce to carry out SOS
                2.0 to be used to offset administrative expenses of the
                Marine Debris Foundation.

         Specifying that the 24-month window for use of federal
                funds for salaries of the Marine Debris Foundation begins
                at the enactment of the Amendments Act; and would expand
                the list of non-federal entities whose contributions to the
                Marine Debris Foundation may be matched using federal
                funds.

        H.R. 886 would also amend the Marine Debris Act by:

         Providing more flexibility to enter into different types
                of agreements and to work with non-profits and individuals;

         Enabling third parties to provide funding to NOAA for
                projects without having to reimburse actual costs; and

         Implementing a technical fix to allow discretionary cost-
                share waiver for grants to address severe marine debris
                events.

        We appreciate the close coordination with the Committees and
    sponsor offices and the opportunity to provide important clarifications
    to help guide NOAA's work with the Marine Debris Foundation and other
    partners.

        H.R. 886 also contains language in the new section on receipt and
    expenditure of funds that would make available funds--``only to the
    extent provided in advance in appropriations acts''.

    Conclusion

        While the problem of marine debris has existed for decades and has
    received considerable attention from NOAA and other partners, there is
    still much to learn as we work to address the impacts of marine debris
    on the environment, marine species, and human health and safety. NOAA
    is committed to investigating and preventing the adverse impacts of
    marine debris and looks forward to working with the Committee.

        Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. I would be
    happy to answer any questions you may have.

    References

    Borrelle, S.B., J. Ringma, K. L. Law, et al. (2020). Predicted growth
    in plastic waste exceeds efforts to mitigate plastic pollution.
    Science. 369(6510).

    Jambeck, J. and K.J. Johnsen (2015). Citizen-Based Litter and Marine
    Debris Data Collection and Mapping. Computing in Science and
    Engineering. 17(4).

    Law, K.L., Starr, N., Siegler, T.R., et al. (2020). The United States'
    contribution of plastic waste to land and ocean. Science Advances.
    6(44).

    Pauly, D., and D. Zeller (2016). Catch reconstructions reveal that
    global marine fisheries catches are higher than reported and declining.
    Nature Communications. 7(10244).

                                     ______

    Questions Submitted for the Record to Ms. Nancy Wallace, Marine Debris
       Program Director, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

              Questions Submitted by Representative Gonzalez-Colon

        Question 1. Natural disasters like hurricanes contribute to the
    problem of marine debris. These events drag household products,
    hazardous waste, and construction debris into our coasts and
    surrounding waters, and create abandoned and derelict vessels that
    impede navigation and damage our marine ecosystems.

        How does the Marine Debris Program work with state, territorial,
    and local stakeholders to address and improve the response to marine
    debris in the aftermath of natural disasters?

        Answer. Disasters, both natural and anthropogenic, can produce
    substantial marine debris that threatens safety, navigation, and the
    environment. The NOAA Marine Debris Program works with local, state,
    tribal, territorial, and federal partners around the country to improve
    preparedness before disasters happen and to enhance the effectiveness
    of response actions in the aftermath of disasters.
        The NOAA Marine Debris Program works collaboratively with local
    stakeholders to develop marine debris emergency response guides.
    Emergency response guides identify organization roles and
    responsibilities and include an overview of permitting and compliance
    requirements that must be met before marine debris removal work begins.
    These documents outline existing response structures at the local,
    state, territorial, and federal levels to facilitate a coordinated and
    timely response to marine debris incidents impacting coastal areas.
    During coastal natural disaster responses, the Marine Debris Program
    offers expertise and support to facilitate integration of marine debris
    considerations described in these guides into incident specific debris
    plans.

        Question 2. According to information published last year, the
    Marine Debris Program was working to release an Emergency Response
    Guide for Puerto Rico in 2022. What's the status of this effort? When
    could we expect Puerto Rico's Marine Debris Emergency Response Guide to
    be released?

        Answer. The Puerto Rico Marine Debris Emergency Response Guide was
    published on March 29, 2023.

        Question 3. In addition to Emergency Response Guides, NOAA's Marine
    Debris Program also helps develop Marine Debris Action Plans to provide
    a strategic framework for partners across a specific state or region to
    address the problem of marine debris. Are there any ongoing or planned
    efforts to develop a Marine Debris Action Plan for Puerto Rico and for
    every other coastal state and territory that currently lacks such an
    action plan?

        Answer. The NOAA Marine Debris Program is working collaboratively
    with the Environmental Protection Agency to develop an action plan for
    Puerto Rico. The action plan is being developed through interviews,
    workshops, and individual input from stakeholders from different
    sectors that have experience or interest in marine debris issues. We
    expect to finalize and release the action plan later this year.

        The NOAA Marine Debris Program has produced the following action
    plans for other regions or states:

         California Ocean Litter Prevention Strategy

         Florida Marine Debris Reduction Plan

         Great Lakes Marine Debris Action Plan

         Gulf of Maine Marine Debris Action Plan

         Gulf of Mexico Alliance Regional Action Plan

         Hawai'i Marine Debris Action Plan

         Long Island Sound Marine Debris Action Plan

         Mid-Atlantic Marine Debris Action Plan

         Oregon Marine Debris Action Plan

         Southeast Marine Debris Action Plan

         Virginia Marine Debris Reduction Plan

         U.S. Virgin Islands Marine Debris Action Plan

         Washington Marine Debris Action Plan

        Action plan development is a long-term process, often taking
    several years. NOAA Marine Debris Program is also in the process of
    developing action plans for several regions or states that are without
    an action plan. Other regions or states have decided that a marine
    debris action plan is not currently necessary, and the Marine Debris
    Program is not currently proceeding with developing action plans for
    those regions or states. Action plan development is also limited by the
    NOAA Marine Debris Program's resources and capacity.

        Question 4. In the Fiscal Year 2023 Disaster Relief Supplemental
    Bill--enacted and signed into law this past December--Congress
    allocated $29 million in supplemental funding to NOAA for expenses
    related to the 2022 hurricanes and natural disasters, including for
    marine debris assessment and removal. Could you provide the
    Subcommittee an update on this? That is, how much of this supplemental
    funding does NOAA plan to allocate for marine debris efforts and what
    process will be followed to select and issue awards?

        Answer. We appreciate the supplemental funding provided by Congress
    for disaster response. The NOAA Marine Debris Program has a proven
    track record in executing funding to assess, remove, and dispose of
    marine debris that has impacted coastal communities as a result of a
    natural disaster, such as a hurricane.
        NOAA is currently working on finalizing the spend plan for the
    funding from the FY 2023 Disaster Relief Supplemental Bill. As soon as
    it is finalized, we will be able to provide specifics on funding levels
    and our execution plan for the funding.

        Question 5. Among other provisions, the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act
    established a Marine Debris Foundation to support and complement NOAA's
    efforts to address marine debris. Could you provide us an update on the
    status of the Foundation's operations and how NOAA intends to work with
    it moving forward?

        Answer. The Save Our Seas 2.0 Act of 2020, Public Law 116-224,
    enacted on December 18, 2020, established the Marine Debris Foundation
    (Foundation) as a charitable nonprofit organization to support the
    efforts of NOAA and others to address marine debris. The Act directed
    the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere (NOAA
    Administrator) to appoint the Foundation's governing Board of Directors
    (Board).
        NOAA announced the appointment of the inaugural Board of the
    Foundation on April 6, 2022. Dr. Ginny Eckhert, Director of Alaska Sea
    Grant, was elected as Chair of the Board. The Board has met several
    times for business and Board meetings.
        The Foundation will be an important partner to NOAA and other
    entities who are tackling the immense challenges that marine debris
    poses to nature, human health, and the U.S. economy.
        The Foundation is an independent organization. The NOAA Marine
    Debris Program provided financial support for the initial activities of
    the Foundation through a contract with The Ocean Foundation. The Ocean
    Foundation provided expertise in the areas of establishing and
    operating a nonprofit organization, and assisted with the first two
    Board meetings.
        Due to the 33 percent lower levels of annual appropriated funds for
    the Marine Debris Program in FY 2022 compared to FY 2021 Enacted
    levels, which has continued through FY 2023, NOAA had to temporarily
    suspend funding to the Foundation. NOAA is requesting an increase in
    the FY 2024 President's Budget to increase funding levels of the Marine
    Debris Program to levels that will allow NOAA to reinitiate financial
    support for the Foundation, as authorized in the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act.
        Dr. Spinrad, NOAA Administrator, serves on the Board and is
    chairing the Executive Director Search Committee. As the Board of
    Directors continues its work to establish the operations and activities
    of the Foundation, NOAA looks forward to growing our partnership and
    working collaboratively to address the problem of marine debris.

        Question 6. One of my biggest concerns when thinking of marine
    debris is the issue of microplastics. As you know, because of their
    small size, wildlife can mistake microplastics for food and ingest
    them, impacting their bodily functions. Microplastics can also attract
    and carry pollutants. Moreover, in addition to their environmental
    impact, some believe microplastics may harm human health. However,
    additional research and studies are needed on this.

        Could you discuss how NOAA's Marine Debris Program is working to
    improve our understanding and research of microplastics?

        Answer. Understanding microplastics and their impacts on people and
    the environment is an active and rapidly growing area of research. The
    NOAA Marine Debris Program has provided funding through competitive
    research funding opportunities to better understand the distribution,
    abundance, and impacts of microplastic debris.
        For example, the NOAA Marine Debris Program is currently funding
    several research projects examining how microplastics move through the
    environment, including how they move from rivers into the ocean, and
    has previously funded studies on how microplastics may impact important
    commercial fish species, including blue crab and rainbow trout.
        In FY 2021, the NOAA Marine Debris program provided funding for a
    project examining marine debris in the Guanica Watershed, including how
    it moves into the nearshore coastal waters of southwest Puerto Rico and
    how it may break down over time into microplastics. Researchers are
    looking at the sources of debris, how debris transport varies across
    the wet and dry seasons, and what factors influence debris degradation.
        In FY 2020, NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information
    (NCEI) launched a pilot project to archive published data on floating
    marine microplastics in the NOAA's data archive and establish a
    geodatabase. Since the launch of the NCEI Marine Microplastics
    geodatabase and ArcGIS portal, this pilot program has become the latest
    marine indicator product in NCEI's portfolio. Currently the geodatabase
    has grown to almost 14,000 floating microplastics data points globally.
    In FY 2023 there are plans to expand this geodatabase to include data
    on sub-surface, seafloor, and beach microplastic concentrations,
    including relevant data from NOAA Marine Debris Program projects.

                                     ______

        Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Ms. Wallace. I now recognize Ms.
    Hageman to introduce our next witness, Mr. Nesvik.

        Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am honored to
    introduce Brian Nesvik, Director of the Wyoming Game and Fish
    Department. Dr. Nesvik has more than 25 years of experience in
    public service as a wildlife manager. He serves as the Chief
    Administrative Head of the Department, and works closely with
    the Governor's appointed Wyoming Game and Fish Commission.
    Brian serves on the boards of multiple associations, including
    as the Vice President of the Western Association of Fish and
    Wildlife Agencies. He also serves on the Board of Directors for
    the Intermountain West Joint Venture.
        We are very proud of the good work that Mr. Nesvik has done
    for our home state in his positions over the last 27 years, and
    look forward to hearing from him today.

      STATEMENT OF BRIAN NESVIK, DIRECTOR, WYOMING GAME AND FISH
                     DEPARTMENT, CHEYENNE, WYOMING

        Mr. Nesvik. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
    Representative Hageman, for your gracious introduction.
        As Congressman Hageman indicated, I am Brian Nesvik, and
    have the pleasure of serving as the Director of the Wyoming
    Game and Fish Department, and have held that position for the
    last 4 years.
        I have had the opportunity to engage in both on-the-ground
    handling and management and policy work on the Greater
    Yellowstone Ecosystem population of grizzly bear for over 25
    years. My work on this population has given me a strong base of
    experience, perspective, and insight, and I am confident in the
    analyses and the assertions I provide here today.
        The portion of the GYE where this population resides--and
    suitable habitat--is over 19,000 square miles. That is larger
    than the states of Vermont and New Hampshire, combined. This is
    one of the largest nearly intact temperate zone ecosystems on
    Earth.
        The GYE population of grizzly bear was estimated to have as
    few as 136 bears remaining when it was listed under the
    Endangered Species Act in 1975, one of the first species to be
    listed under that newly-enacted law. Today, this population
    numbers over 1,000, and it has occupied nearly all available
    habitat, with reproducing females.
        Make no mistake, this is one of the most significant
    conservation success stories in the world. This success story
    was largely made possible due to the efforts of the people of
    Wyoming who live, work, and recreate in grizzly bear country.
    The state of Wyoming has invested over $59 million derived from
    sportsmen and women dollars through license sales in grizzly
    bear conservation and recovery.
        This population reached federally established recovery
    criteria in 2003, and has continued to grow in number and
    distribution ever since. Despite the fact that biological
    recovery was achieved, the ultimate goal of the Act is not
    realized today because the species remains listed. This
    population has been delisted two times, with support from three
    presidential administrations, including Presidents Bush, Obama,
    and Trump.
        The reason it remains listed is not based in biology, but
    rather in administrative complexities and technicalities
    espoused by Federal judges and court decisions. Each time this
    population has been delisted, the proverbial goalpost required
    to delist is moved. Each time it has moved, the states have
    responded with corresponding changes to regulatory mechanisms
    and statutes, but to date to no avail.
        During the past two decades, as this issue has been batted
    around between Federal Government and the Federal courts,
    grizzly bear conflicts with people have grown significantly.
    People who work, live, and recreate in grizzly bear country
    have made changes to support and accommodate recovery. Human
    attacks have increased and, unfortunately, nine people have
    lost their lives in this ecosystem after succumbing to injuries
    suffered in a grizzly bear attack.
        Livestock producers suffer significant losses on an annual
    basis when grizzly bears kill their cattle, sheep, pets, and
    working dogs. Because existing habitats are nearly full, bears
    have displaced to non-suitable habitats, including private
    lands, cornfields, towns, and backyards. The people who
    supported recovery and changed their lives to accommodate a
    thriving grizzly bear population are growing frustrated. This
    is not a population that requires Federal protections.
        This is an important issue to our state, and we haven't sat
    on our hands in the face of frustration. As was mentioned,
    under the leadership of Governor Mark Gordon, in January 2022
    Wyoming filed a petition imploring the Federal Government to
    delist the population again for a third time. Highlighted in
    the petition is the fact that, again, Wyoming has addressed the
    issues cited by the Federal Court in their decision to relist
    the bear. While we disagreed with their conclusions, we honored
    the decision, and made the changes necessary to alleviate their
    issues.
        While the Fish and Wildlife Service has not met the
    legally-required timelines, we are encouraged that the Service
    issued a 90-day decision in February of this year indicating
    they were initiating a status review that could result in a
    positive finding on our petition.
        The best way to celebrate the success is to delist and
    return management to the states and the tribes, where it
    belongs, and to do so by whatever means is necessary. The bill
    you are considering today would certainly achieve the
    conservation outcome we feel is best for the management of
    grizzly bears and the people of our state.
        The state of Wyoming and our neighbors in Idaho and Montana
    have entered into tri-state agreements to ensure cross-
    jurisdictional management after delisting in a science-based
    manner. The states have put important laws and regulations on
    the books to ensure adequate regulatory mechanisms exist for a
    delisted bear population. Wyoming has adopted a comprehensive
    grizzly bear management plan based on science and thoughts from
    citizens who live closest to the bear.
        My department employs grizzly bear managers who are
    preeminent experts with the skills and experience to manage
    this population. It is important to note that we have, for
    decades, managed other large carnivores like mountain lions,
    black bears, and gray wolves, and all of those populations are
    abundant, healthy, and thriving today. Wyoming is unequivocally
    committed to ensuring the long-term viability and health of
    this population, and our track record reflects that.
        I thank you for the opportunity to appear here today, Mr.
    Chairman, and look forward to standing for your questions.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Nesvik follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Brian R. Nesvik, Director,
                        Wyoming Game And Fish Department
          on H.R. 1245, ``Grizzly Bear State Management Act of 2023''

        Good morning Chairman Bentz and Ranking Member Huffman. Thank you
    for the opportunity to testify before you today as you consider the
    Grizzly Bear State Management Act of 2023 (H.R. 1245) to delist the
    Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population of the grizzly bear under the
    Endangered Species Act. I am Brian Nesvik, and I have the privilege to
    serve as the Director of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department
    (Department). I have over 27 years of service to the citizens and
    wildlife of Wyoming in my role as a wildlife manager. My testimony is
    premised on my experiences serving in various positions within the
    Department, including Game Warden, Regional Wildlife Supervisor, and
    Chief Game Warden/Chief of the Wildlife Division. I have served as the
    Director for the past four years. Within my current role I serve as the
    chief administrative head of the Department with general leadership,
    supervision, and control of all activities, functions, and employees of
    the Department. I report to Governor Mark Gordon and work closely with
    the Governor appointed Wyoming Game and Fish Commission. I am honored
    to work with and lead an incredibly talented and dedicated team as we
    work together to manage Wyoming's vast and diverse wildlife and the
    places they live for those who enjoy them today and will enjoy them
    tomorrow. I earned a Bachelor of Science in Fish and Wildlife Biology
    and Management from the University of Wyoming and a Master of Science
    in Strategic Studies from the U.S. Army War College. I serve on many
    state, regional, and national organizations and committees, including
    as the Vice President of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife
    Agencies, on the Executive Committee of the Association of Fish and
    Wildlife Agencies (AFWA), and the Board of Directors for the
    Intermountain West Joint Venture.
        While grizzly bears are found in other populations in the lower 48
    states and throughout the western Canadian provinces and Alaska, I will
    focus my efforts on the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) population.
    The GYE is an expansive landscape comprised of both Yellowstone
    National Park, Grand Teton National Park and large areas of designated
    wilderness area in portions of five National Forests. This population
    is managed and monitored in that part of the GYE where suitable habitat
    exists as designated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
    informed by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team. This area is
    termed the Demographic Monitoring Area (DMA). The DMA is 19,279 square
    miles, which is slightly larger than the geographic area of the states
    of Vermont and New Hampshire combined.
        Most of the specific scientific information I will talk about today
    is directly related to the reality of a fully recovered grizzly bear
    population and the challenges associated with increased abundance and
    distribution outside suitable habitats, coupled with increased human
    use of grizzly bear habitat. My testimony reflects our Department's
    expert opinion as to why a delisted grizzly bear population managed
    with data collected by our personnel as part of decades of recovery and
    conservation efforts is the most efficient and effective path forward
    for grizzly bears and the people who live, work, and recreate in
    Wyoming and the GYE.
        The recovery of the GYE grizzly bear population is one of the most
    remarkable conservation success stories in the history of wildlife
    conservation. This population is one of the world's most studied
    populations of wildlife. Despite all science-based information
    affirming the population's biological recovery and successful
    conservation, we continue to be hobbled by the species' status, listed
    as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Wyoming is proud
    to have paid for and taken a leadership role in grizzly bear recovery
    and management for the past 45+ years. Wyoming people (primarily those
    who have purchased hunting or fishing licenses) have invested over $59
    million to recover this population from its low point when there were
    as few as 136 bears in the GYE. Wyoming people have changed how they
    work, live, and recreate in grizzly bear country to help with their
    recovery. The most recent and best available science estimates there
    are more than 1,000 grizzly bears within the suitable habitat of the
    GYE.
        While the majority of GYE grizzly bears and suitable habitat are in
    Wyoming, there are also significant portions of this population in
    Montana and Idaho. These states have also demonstrated strong
    commitment by contributing significantly to the recovery of this
    population.
        We firmly believe state and tribal wildlife management agencies are
    best suited to manage wildlife within the borders of their respective
    states. The localized experience and expertise provide the proper
    context to inform management decisions and to establish objectives
    directing how wildlife populations are managed using the most current
    techniques and best available science. In the case of the GYE, the
    states of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho played a lead role in the
    population recovery. From a data collection, public education, conflict
    management, law enforcement, and research perspective, the states have
    conducted the overwhelming majority of the work despite the species'
    being under federal authority.
    Current Status of the GYE Population

        The GYE grizzly bear population is fully recovered as measured by
    all federally developed recovery criteria. Quantifying and measuring
    recovery has been challenging to say the least. This challenge has not
    resulted from difficulty with the biology and science, but rather the
    ever-changing goal posts established by the Service and conclusions
    developed in court decisions by federal judges. Despite these
    challenges, I can state unequivocally that for two decades this
    population has been biologically recovered, and is healthy and viable.
    From the stated purposes of the ESA, a recovered population is one
    that: has the capability to offset human-caused mortality, is large
    enough to ensure a high probability of survival considering demographic
    and environmental stochasticity, and has reproductive females
    distributed throughout the recovery area. The robust dataset for this
    population affords long-term insight into its biological health. It has
    continually demonstrated a steady increase in abundance, density, and
    distribution (see upcoming figures). Recent updates in the science used
    to estimate abundance provide for more accurate information. Based on
    all available metrics, the population exceeds 1,000 grizzly bears in
    the DMA--a number that is double the original number needed to deem it
    a recovered population. Annual grizzly bear mortality has remained
    below established thresholds despite increasing human caused mortality
    due to a growing population. Reproductive females occupy the entire DMA
    and have for decades. These facts are relevant because they directly
    tie to the recovery criteria established by the Service, informed by
    recommendations from grizzly bear experts.
        Based on all scientific information, biological data collected, and
    the analysis of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, within the
    area identified as suitable habitat (see Fig. 1), this population is
    exhibiting density dependent traits consistent with a population at or
    above carrying capacity. The DMA was identified as a large enough tract
    of contiguous habitat to maintain GYE grizzly bears in perpetuity.
    Grizzly bear populations have expanded their range beyond the habitat
    considered suitable by the Service. In 2020, nearly 8,000 square miles
    of grizzly bear range was outside the DMA, leading to increased
    conflict potential between grizzly bears and humans. While ecologically
    fascinating, having grizzly bears in these areas are more prone to
    conflict. These conflicts (discussed in further detail later) impeded
    the success of grizzly bear conservation and erode social tolerance for
    grizzly bears for those directly impacted.

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        .epsFigure 1. Relevant jurisdictional boundaries and areas of note
    for the GYE grizzly bear population.

    Grizzly Bear Expansion and Human Conflict

        Their expansion in range into unsuitable habitats has created
    significant challenges for all states and agencies involved due to the
    ever-increasing rise in human/bear conflict potential. Dangerous
    encounters with humans, destruction of private property (mostly
    livestock), and bear occupancy in human-dominated landscapes are all
    the reality of an expanding population. An expanding population was
    promoted and was the stated objective for decades, but once grizzly
    bears surpassed the suitable habitat of the GYE, the expansion
    continued. Now our people deal directly with grizzly bears expanding
    into areas that are primarily rural and agricultural communities, not
    pristine backcountry wilderness sanctuaries. People working, living,
    and recreating in these areas were assured grizzly bears would not be
    allowed to permanently occupy these areas outside of suitable habitat
    by the state and federal entities involved in recovery. This promise
    inspired support for recovery by local citizens. Occupancy in these
    human-dominated areas, far from biologically suitable habitats, is not
    a realistic scenario for success from a human or bear perspective.
    Since GYE grizzly bears were initially delisted in 2007, the population
    has increased its distribution by nearly 800 mi2 annually
    (see Figs. 2 and 3). From 1990-2007 the distribution increased at a
    slower rate (465 mi2 annually). From 1990 through 2020, the
    area of occupied range has increased steadily at a rate of 4% per year
    from just over 880 mi2 to over 27,000 mi2 (see
    Fig. 4). Grizzly bear occupied range now includes 97.9% of the DMA, and
    has expanded 25 miles beyond the DMA boundary to the east and west and
    by as much as 37 miles in the Wyoming Range in the southwestern portion
    of the GYE. The 2020 data show that 30.6% of GYE grizzly bear range is
    now outside the DMA boundary. By 1990, just over 231 mi2 of
    private lands were encompassed within grizzly bear occupied range, an
    area half the size of Grand Teton National Park. By 2020, over 4600
    mi2 of private lands occurred within occupied range (Figure
    4), an area more than 77 mi2 larger than Yellowstone and
    Grand Teton National Parks and the John D. Rockefeller Parkway
    combined.

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        .epsFigure 2. Grizzly bear occupied range (green shaded area) in
    the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020.

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        .epsFigure 3. Total area of grizzly bear occupied range and percent
    of area of occupied range outside the Demographic Monitoring Area (DMA)
    in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, 1990-2020.

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        .epsFigure 4. Area of private land within grizzly bear occupied
    range in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem in 5-year intervals, 1990-
    2020

        When evaluating verified grizzly bear conflicts in Wyoming, we have
    documented a widespread increase in conflicts associated with the
    increased distribution of grizzly bears. The conflict potential has
    been exacerbated as bears have expanded beyond those habitats suitable
    for their long-term viability. From 1990-1999, we averaged 79 conflicts
    annually. From 2000-2009, that number jumped to 150 annual verified
    conflicts, and from 2010-2022 we averaged approximately 220 verified
    grizzly bear conflicts in Wyoming (see Fig. 5). Based on the combined
    efforts of our Bear Wise Wyoming program, community based education
    programs, increased bear resistant infrastructure in grizzly bear
    habitats and countless sacrifices and adaptations by the public, we
    have decreased the overall conflict potential within the DMA as much as
    can be expected. Conflicts associated with property damage, garbage and
    other types are <10% of all annually verified incidents. Conversely,
    the same cannot be said for conflicts between grizzly bears and
    livestock with more than 60% of annual incidents between grizzly bears
    and people being the result of livestock depredation, predominantly
    cattle.

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        .epsFigure 5. Annual grizzly bear conflicts verified by Wyoming
    Game and Fish personnel in Wyoming (this excludes conflicts that occur
    in the National Park Service lands and within the tribal lands of the
    Wind River Reservation).

        These incidents result from an increase in bears and their
    expansion into new areas, as cattle grazing within the DMA has
    decreased over time.

        Unfortunately, the increasing bear population has resulted in
    increased human attacks. These attacks have resulted in severe injuries
    and human deaths. Increased bear safety education and a willingness of
    people who use occupied habitats to exercise behavior that mitigates
    bear conflict have certainly prevented many injuries and deaths, but
    bear attacks illicit negative public attitudes and a fear by some to
    enter grizzly bear country.
        As alluded to, the public and private sectors of people who live,
    work and recreate in grizzly bear occupied habitats have overwhelmingly
    changed their lifestyles and made sacrifices to reduce conflict
    potential. Landowners and residents have incurred additional costs to
    create bear resistant storage for trash, livestock feed, and other
    attractants. Working with the Department, many ranches and residences
    have erected bear proof infrastructure with electric fencing or other
    deterrents. Some have completely revamped landscapes on private lands
    to reduce conflict potential. At a time when the bear population has
    increased, conflicts have not increased proportionally, especially in
    the core of the ecosystem because people have changed behaviors.
    Without human behavior changes that mitigated conflicts, there would
    have been a much steeper increase in conflicts.
        The Department has created educational/outreach programs (i.e.,
    Bear Wise Wyoming, Bear Wise Community Programs) to reduce conflict
    potential and incentivize actions to secure attractants and alter human
    behavior when recreating, living, and working in grizzly bear country.
    To reach the widest audience possible, we have created interactive
    materials on our website and use all venues and forums to disseminate
    information. We have documented decreased conflicts associated with
    property damage and bears acquiring anthropogenic foods. Unfortunately,
    we are witnessing increases in human injuries, site conflicts, and a
    wide scale shift toward livestock depredation as bears continue to
    expand outside of the core Recovery Zone and well beyond the DMA.
    Securing attractants and reducing conflict potential is much more
    difficult in the rural, exurban, and agricultural landscapes where
    grizzly bears have expanded.
        In recent years, there has been a great deal of attention regarding
    increased mortality of grizzly bears in the GYE. Unfortunately, much of
    the information disseminated by those who oppose delisting is either
    abjectly wrong, contorted, or taken out of context. Very simply,
    increases in mortality are proportional (or perhaps less than
    proportional) to the increase in abundance and distribution of grizzly
    bears. Human-caused mortality has always been the leading cause of
    grizzly bear mortality, but mitigation measures have been adopted and
    adapted over multiple decades to reduce instances of human-caused
    mortality. These measures have proven effective in many instances.
    Rhetoric and hyperbole regarding ``record levels of mortality'' fail to
    include overall metrics of population ecology. During a time when
    human-caused mortality has increased, the grizzly bear population has
    increased at an average rate of 4% per year. With higher abundance,
    more offspring are being born and recruited into the population than
    the number that are dying, which is why we still have an increasing
    population. The unfortunate reality of being beyond recovery is an
    increased potential for dangerous encounters between grizzly bears and
    humans, with negative outcomes for both species. The novelty of an apex
    predator expanding its range wears off quickly when it directly impacts
    human safety and livelihood.
    State Management Capacity and Capability

        The states of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho are fully capable of
    assuming management of the GYE population and, in fact, have done so
    when the population was previously delisted two times. Speaking
    specifically for Wyoming, we have demonstrated our abilities to manage
    and conserve all wildlife populations throughout the State since the
    inception of the Department in the early 1900s. Other species
    successfully managed by Wyoming include black bears, mountain lions and
    gray wolves. In regards to grizzly bears specifically, the State has
    been handling on the ground grizzly bear management activities
    throughout our jurisdiction under federal oversight for multiple
    decades and has successfully managed grizzly bears under state
    authority twice when bears were delisted. Wyoming has only been denied
    its right to manage a fully recovered population consequential to
    litigation. Of note, in neither relisting court decision was the
    population ruled to be below biological recovery standards.
    Additionally, courts found Wyoming to have adequate regulatory
    mechanisms in place to ensure continued viability of the population.
        As a state and Department, we have developed multiple regulatory
    mechanisms to ensure GYE grizzly bears remain recovered into the future
    including a Wyoming Game and Fish Commission and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service approved Grizzly Bear Management Plan. In addition, multiple
    state statutes and Wyoming Game and Fish Regulations codify regulatory
    mechanisms. For the most recent delisting process, the states of
    Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho entered into a three-state memorandum of
    agreement to provide assurances regarding the post-delisting allocation
    of discretionary mortality. Despite the conjecture that hunting was
    forced upon Wyoming's grizzly bears when previously delisted, the truth
    lies in the adaptive and collaborative public process that serves as
    the foundation of state wildlife management. Upon gaining management
    authority for grizzly bears most recently, Wyoming Game and Fish
    personnel traveled around the state to seek insight into how people
    wanted grizzly bears managed, specifically asking for input regarding:
    monitoring, research, conflict management, outreach/education, and
    hunting. The discussions and comments were used to update the
    aforementioned grizzly bear management plan and codified in Game and
    Fish Commission Regulations, This public outreach effort fostered
    transparency as to how grizzly bear management and conservation would
    occur into the future. These commitments are all above and beyond the
    requirements of the ESA. Suffice it to say, multiple statutes and
    Commission Regulations already in place serve as regulatory mechanisms
    and demonstrate the commitment to maintain a recovered population
    within our areas of jurisdiction in perpetuity. In December 2021, the
    states of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho updated their three-state
    memorandum of agreement to reflect updated science and further
    committed their collaborative approach to address issues brought forth
    by the 9th circuit court so there were no barriers in moving toward the
    necessary means to delist the GYE grizzly bear population.
        Finally, The Department's Large Carnivore Section was created to
    manage grizzly bears and other large carnivores in a science-based
    framework that considers public comment while also providing an
    immediate response to conflicts between carnivores and humans. The
    majority of work by this Section, in collaboration with regional
    Department personnel, is devoted to grizzly bear monitoring, outreach/
    education, and conflict management.
        The fact that we are now dealing with more accurate representations
    of population size and the reality of a recovered population places
    further emphasis on the progression of listed entities within the
    endangered species act to move beyond listed status for grizzly bears
    and devote needed attention elsewhere. The sheer amount of money and
    effort being held hostage due to procedurally listed populations only
    serves as a detriment to those species and populations in need of
    assistance.
    Financial Investments and Costs of Grizzly Bear Management

        Since the GYE population was first listed under the ESA, the State
    of Wyoming has invested over $59 million to recover and manage this
    population. In the last decade alone there has been more than $20
    million expended on grizzly bear recovery and management in Wyoming
    outside Park Service lands and the Wind River Reservation. Wyoming made
    these investments of nearly $2 million annually despite the fact that
    the species is listed and we only receive $100,000 annually of grizzly
    bear conservation funding from the federal government. In accordance
    with the pre-discussed expansion of grizzly bears, there is a direct
    increase in Department involvement and funds expended. The strong
    majority of management costs are paid for from Commission funds.
    Approximately 80% of the Commission's revenue is derived from
    contributions by sportspeople (see Fig. 9). Our financial contributions
    to grizzly bear conservation further demonstrates our commitment to
    grizzly bear conservation and management.
        If GYE grizzly bears remain listed as a threatened population under
    the ESA, the cost of grizzly bear management has the potential to
    continue to rise with the expansion and increase of the population. As
    more bears occupy more human occupied areas, the potential for conflict
    and the associated costs stand to rise at a faster pace because bears
    are more likely to come into conflict in these areas than they are in
    biologically suitable habitats. Since 2012, approximately 1/3 of all
    conflicts verified and dealt with by the Department occurred outside
    the DMA's biologically and socially suitable habitat. While bears are
    tolerated outside the DMA, there is overwhelming evidence and
    scientific data indicating that managing bear occupancy in these areas
    is not in the best interest of grizzly bears or people. Grizzly bear
    caused livestock depredation and subsequent damage payments in Wyoming
    have continued to increase due to a recovered and increasing
    population, from Fiscal Year 2013 through Fiscal Year 2022, a total of
    $3,551,306 was paid in damage compensation for grizzly bear depredation
    (an annual average of $355,130 with an overall increasing trend in
    payment and depredations, see Fig. 6).

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        .epsFigure 6. Fiscal expenditures for grizzly bear conservation
    broken down by primary categories of disbursement of funds.

    Effects of Perpetual Listed Status of Grizzly Bears and Other Species/
            Populations

        More important than direct monetary costs, keeping an animal such
    as the grizzly bear listed for sociopolitical reasons is
    disenfranchising to the public and to those that have dedicated so much
    of their lives and livelihoods toward recovery of the animal. The
    Endangered Species Act intends to provide the necessary protections for
    a species or population to recover on the landscape, with the ultimate
    goal of removing them from threatened or endangered status. The
    perpetual listing and litigation surrounding grizzly bears have not
    benefited the grizzly bears in the GYE or elsewhere.
        Both the Service and the courts have moved the requirements for
    delisting multiple times. These changing requirements have not been
    based in science. Below is a chronological summary of delisting efforts
    and changing requirements. It is important to note that this population
    has been delisted two times with support from three presidential
    administrations including Presidents Bush, Obama and Trump.
        In 2007 the GYE population was delisted based on a full recovery
    measure, with 2003 and 2004 biological metrics of approximately 550
    grizzly bears. Litigation ensued and the population was relisted in
    2009. At multiple levels in the court system, they concluded adequate
    regulatory mechanisms existed, but that the Service hadn't adequately
    described the potential effects of Whitebark Pine declines on the
    grizzly bear population. The Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team made
    up of Federal and State scientists completed a food synthesis report
    over several years concluding that: Grizzly Bears are opportunistic
    omnivores and when a specific food source is limited, they utilize
    other foods to meet their needs. The bear population increased at a
    time when Whitebark Pine availability as a food source decreased. The
    GYE population was approaching density dependence or carrying capacity.
    This report and the Study Team's conclusions sufficiently addressed the
    court decision requirements.
        Based on this work and the Study Team Report, the Service began the
    process to draft a new delisting rule in 2015. However, they decided to
    go further than anything identified by the courts and to modify the
    recovery criteria to require the state to manage for at least 674
    grizzly bears post-delisting. This wasn't based on any biological
    findings or data. The overly conservatively biased population estimate
    had reached over 700 bears when this delisting rule was drafted. The
    population was delisted again in 2017 and management was returned to
    the State and Tribal governments.
        Litigation ensued immediately and in 2018, a federal court relisted
    the population. The courts asserted that the Service hadn't adequately
    considered the effects of the delisting on remnant populations.
    Additionally, they concluded that the rule had not adequately addressed
    genetic connectivity. Lastly, they found that the states needed to go
    above their existing commitments to ``recalibrate'' future population
    estimation techniques. This was a biological opinion with no basis in
    science rather than a legal interpretation of requirement of the ESA.
        In 2021, the three states adopted specific language to address the
    assertions by the court. While we disagreed with the notion that
    recalibration commitments were biologically required to ensure
    recovery, we adopted language in our Tri-State Agreement to
    specifically address the courts finding. We committed to ensuring
    genetic connectivity if the science ever indicated it wasn't
    sufficient. In summary, the states again acquiesced to moving goal
    posts in order to delist this population.
        We have noted a waning tolerance for grizzly bears, especially
    along the expanding front of grizzly bear range throughout Northwest
    Wyoming. If tolerance and acceptance of this iconic animal decreases,
    support for maintaining grizzly bears throughout the GYE becomes more
    difficult. In the case of the GYE grizzly bear, the ESA is no longer
    serving its purpose to recover and delist the species and turn
    management over to the respective states, federal, and tribal agencies.
    While the ESA is regarded widely as an effective and needed Federal
    Act, support is waning due to the Federal Government's inability to
    provide a durable delisting rule for a fully recovered species that has
    been the benefactor of the Act. The prescribed protections of the ESA
    are ineffective and cumbersome when a population has moved beyond
    recovery. Furthermore, it is critical to note that upon delisting,
    recovery criteria must be achieved to demonstrate recovery and maintain
    state management authority. Removal of ESA listed status does not strip
    protections, but rather it places the management authority in the hands
    of the proper jurisdiction for those that have been managing grizzly
    bears for decades and are responsible for their current status. A state
    managed population would allow professional wildlife managers to employ
    all the tools necessary to maintain grizzly bears in perpetuity,
    resolve conflicts, conduct valuable research and properly serve the
    people of Wyoming and visitors to our state. Coexistence means
    sacrifice and compromise, it also means conservation and management.
        Unfortunately, the misuse of the ESA for charismatic megafauna such
    as the grizzly bear threatens the future of the Act. It is clearly time
    to recognize and celebrate this success story, just as was done
    following the recovery of the bald eagle and gray wolf. The ability to
    move forward with the delisting of grizzly bears in the GYE will give
    credence to the Act, credibility to the constituents who have adapted
    and sacrificed their daily lives in grizzly bear country, and further
    demonstrate the ability for multiple agencies to maintain and properly
    manage this iconic symbol of the wild in North America.
        We haven't sat on our hands in the face of adversity and challenge.
    Under the leadership of Governor Mark Gordon, in January 2022, Wyoming
    filed a petition imploring the federal government to delist this
    population again. Highlighted in the petition is that, once again,
    Wyoming has addressed the issues cited by the federal court in its
    decision to relist the bear. While we disagreed with their conclusions,
    we honored the decision and made changes to alleviate their issues.
    While the Fish and Wildlife Service has not met legally required
    timelines, we are encouraged that the Service issued a 90-day decision
    in February of this year indicating they were initiating a status
    review that could result in a positive finding on our petition. That
    said, we have no assurance of a timeline or if the Service will move
    forward with delisting.
        The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly bear success must be
    recognized and celebrated. Delisting this population now, by whatever
    means, is clearly in the best interest of the grizzly bear, the people
    of our state, and the ESA's credibility.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony and to
    share some perspective regarding grizzly bear conservation in Wyoming.

                                     ______

        Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Nesvik, and I now recognize Mr.
    Tiffany to introduce our next witness, Mr. Roberts, for 5
    minutes.

        Mr. Tiffany. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr.
    Nathan Roberts earned his BS and MS from the University of
    Missouri, and his PhD from Cornell University, where his
    dissertation focused on furbearer management. He has worked for
    several state and Federal agencies, including as the bear,
    wolf, and furbearer research scientist at the Wisconsin
    Department of Natural Resources; as a Regional Biometrician for
    the National Wildlife Refuge System in Alaska; as a Research
    Assistant at Cornell University; and as a Wildlife Biologist
    for the United States Department of Agriculture.
        He has published over two dozen scientific articles related
    to carnivores and furbearers. Dr. Roberts is currently a
    Professor at the College of the Ozarks in the Conservation and
    Wildlife Management Program. He has been commissioned to the
    International Union for the Conservation of Nature, IUCN, and
    has served for many years as a member of the U.S. Furbearer
    Conservation Technical Working Group.
        Speaking of scientists who are at the top of their field,
    you can do no better than Dr. Nathan Roberts.

     STATEMENT OF NATHAN ROBERTS, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, COLLEGE OF
                     THE OZARKS, BRANSON, MISSOURI

        Dr. Roberts. Good morning, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member
    Huffman, members of the Committee, and thank you, Mr. Tiffany,
    for that introduction.
        The gray wolf in the United States is recovered, no longer
    in danger of extinction, and should be removed from the
    Endangered Species Act.
        H.R. 764 restores a rule that was developed by the
    Department of the Interior with the extensive input of state
    jurisdictions using the best available science. Ultimately, the
    DOI came to the appropriate conclusion that the wolf had been
    recovered and no longer warranted listing under ESA.
        There is no doubt that the wolf is recovered in the United
    States. In the Great Lakes region alone, the wolf population
    was estimated at over 4,200 individuals. Recovery goals have
    been exceeded every year since at least 1994. The regional
    population is now estimated to be at least 10 times the
    established delisting threshold.
        It is remarkable to note that given the natural life span
    of wolves, every wolf on the landscape in the Great Lakes
    region was born long after the recovery goals were met.
        State wildlife agencies, as well as tribal agencies,
    monitor wolf populations. Jurisdictions use a variety of
    techniques and methods to estimate the population trajectory of
    wolves. These methods are well established and supported by
    peer-reviewed literature. We can be confident that the wolf
    population is at least as large as estimates suggest, because
    jurisdictions are using scientifically sound, defensible
    monitoring methods.
        Similarly, we can also be confident that the potential
    impacts of management actions can be evaluated and adapted as
    needed.
        Wolves in the contiguous United States are represented by
    several meta-populations that collectively compose the overall
    population. In the unlikely event that a meta-population were
    to experience severe population declines, the impact on the
    overall population can be mitigated by the other
    metapopulations. Indeed, the DOI appropriately recognizes
    resiliency in their final rule. The DOI, with support from
    numerous states, has published several final rules delisting
    the wolf in the last 15 years. Unfortunately, relentless and
    endless litigation has vacated these rules.
        It is important to note that delisting wolves simply
    returns management authority and responsibility to the
    jurisdiction in which wolves are found. Some jurisdictions may
    continue protections, while others may allow some take.
    Jurisdictions will weigh the various biological, economic,
    cultural, and social aspects unique to their respective
    jurisdictions to forge a path forward post-delisting. The
    agencies charged with managing wolves in these jurisdictions
    will be accountable to the public they serve. And, similarly,
    elected bodies that wade into wolf management will also be
    accountable to their respective electorates.
        Additionally, this bill does not prevent the DOI from
    relisting the wolf via the normal, data-driven rulemaking
    process, if the science supports such an action. Thus, there
    remains a checks-and-balances system between the Federal
    Government, state jurisdictions, and the affected public.
        Failing to delist wolves even after they have far exceeded
    recovery goals compromises the integrity of the ESA. In
    addition, funding and other resources are encumbered for
    wolves, a recovered species, that could otherwise be dedicated
    to species that are truly in need of assistance.
        The endless litigation cycle that disregards
    scientifically-based recovery goals disincentivizes
    jurisdictions from pursuing endangered species recovery, or
    embarking on partnerships to restore populations that are truly
    imperiled. Jurisdictions will become hesitant or outright
    resistant to restore imperiled species if they are not delisted
    following recovery. Certainly, when they see wolf populations
    that have surpassed goals for over a quarter century remain
    listed, it is discouraging.
        Finally, public support for imperiled species conservation
    degrades when citizens see abundant species classified as
    endangered, despite abundant data and scientific consensus to
    suggest otherwise. The public, especially the citizens that
    live in core wolf range, experience both the positive and
    negative impacts of wolves. The public were assured that wolves
    would be delisted once they were recovered. Yet, after meeting
    delisting thresholds for almost 30 years, the public are still
    waiting for delisting.
        It is unfortunate that litigious entities continue to abuse
    the ESA and blatantly ignore science. Sadly, the result is that
    science is devalued, partnerships are avoided, the public is
    disenchanted, and conservation suffers.
        Gray wolves are recovered in the United States. The science
    is clear. The species is secure and recovery goals have been
    met many times over. This is why the Federal Government and so
    many states have appropriately supported delisting again and
    again. Congress should likewise follow science, recognize the
    recovery of this iconic species, and delist wolves. Thank you.

        [The prepared statement of Dr. Roberts follows:]
      Prepared Statement of Nathan M. Roberts, PhD, Associate Professor,
                             College of the Ozarks
                     on H.R. 764, ``Trust the Science Act''
        Members of the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries:

        The gray wolf in the United States is recovered, no longer in
    danger of extinction, and should be removed from the Endangered Species
    Act of 1973 (ESA). H.R. 764 restores a rule that was developed by the
    Department of Interior with the extensive input of state jurisdictions.
    The final rule is entitled ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
    Plants; Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) From the List of
    Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.'' This rule was originally
    published on November 3, 2020 (85 Fed. Reg. 69778). In developing this
    rule, which H.R. 764 will reinstate, the Department of Interior
    undertook an exhaustive process to evaluate the best available science
    from multiple sources. Ultimately, the Department of Interior came to
    the appropriate conclusion that the wolf has recovered as defined by
    established recovery goals and no longer warranted listing under the
    ESA.
        There is no doubt that the wolf is recovered in the United States.
    In the Great Lakes region alone, the wolf population was estimated at
    over 4,200 individuals. The established recovery plan for this region
    set clear numeric goals to serve as criteria for determining successful
    recovery. These goals have been exceeded every year since at least
    1994. In addition to having met the threshold almost 3 decades ago, the
    regional population is now estimated to be least ten times the
    established delisting threshold. It is remarkable to note that, given
    the natural life span of wolves, every wolf on the landscape in the
    Great Lakes region was born long after recovery goals were met.
        State wildlife agencies, as well as tribal agencies, monitor wolf
    populations. Monitoring any free ranging and wild population is
    challenging, but not insurmountable. Jurisdictions use a variety of
    techniques and methods to estimate the geographic range and population
    trajectory of wolves. These methods are well established and supported
    by peer-reviewed literature. It is impossible to know the absolute
    number of any species, including humans, but estimates yielded from
    scientifically-sound methods are reliable and allow for monitoring of
    the species. In addition, effective monitoring programs allow for
    evaluating population responses to management actions and changes. We
    can be confident that the wolf population is at least as large as
    estimates suggest because jurisdictions are using scientifically sound,
    defensible methods to produce these population estimates. Similarly, we
    can be confident that the potential impacts of management actions, or
    changes to management programs, can be evaluated and adapted as needed.
        Wolves in the contiguous United States are represented by several
    meta-populations that collectively compose the overall population.
    Multiple established meta-populations help ensure that the overall
    population is robust and resilient. In the unlikely event that a meta-
    population were to experience severe population declines, the impact on
    the overall population can be mitigated by the other subpopulations.
    Indeed, the Department of Interior appropriately recognized this
    resiliency in their final rule published in 2020.
        The Department of Interior, with support from numerous states, has
    published several `final rules' delisting the wolf during the last 15
    years. Unfortunately, endless relentless litigation has vacated these
    rules. It is important to note that delisting wolves simply returns
    management authority and responsibility to the state and tribal
    jurisdictions in which wolves are found. Some jurisdictions may
    continue state or tribal level protections while others may allow some
    take. In each case, jurisdictions will weigh the various biological,
    economic, culture and social aspects unique to their respective
    jurisdictions to forge a path forward post-delisting. The agencies
    charged with managing wolves in these jurisdictions will be accountable
    to the public they serve. Similarly, elected bodies that wade into wolf
    management will also be accountable to their respective electorates.
    Additionally, this bill does not prevent the Department of Interior
    from relisting the wolf, via the data-driven rulemaking process, if the
    science supports such an action. Thus, there remains a checks and
    balances system between the federal government, state jurisdictions,
    and the affected public.
        Failing to recognize that wolves are recovered and taking the
    appropriate action to reflect this reality via delisting undermines the
    intention of the ESA. The Act was intended to provide temporary
    protection and funding until a species met established recovery goals.
    Then, after these recovery goals are met, the states are to regain
    management authority following delisting. By not delisting wolves, even
    after they have far exceeded recovery goals, the integrity of the ESA
    is compromised. Additionally, funding, and other resources, are
    encumbered for wolves, a recovered species, that could otherwise be
    dedicated to species that are truly in need of assistance. Furthermore,
    the endless litigation cycle, that disregards scientifically-based
    recovery goals, disincentivize jurisdictions from pursuing endangered
    species recovery or embarking on partnerships to restore species that
    are actually imperiled. Jurisdictions will become hesitant, or outright
    resistant, to restore imperiled species if species are not delisted
    once recovery is met. Certainly, witnessing wolf populations that have
    surpassed recovery goals for over twenty years, yet remain listed, is
    discouraging at best. Finally, public support for imperiled species
    conservation degrades when citizens see abundant species classified as
    `endangered' despite abundant data, and scientific consensus, that says
    otherwise. The public, especially the citizens that live in the core of
    wolf range, experience both the positive, and negative impacts of
    wolves. The public were told, via the recovery plan, the wolves would
    be delisted once they were recovered. Those citizens were further told
    the clear criteria used to determine if a species has been recovered.
    Yet, after meeting these criteria for almost thirty years, the public
    are still waiting to see wolves delisted. It is unfortunate that
    litigious entities continue to abuse the ESA and blatantly ignore
    science. As a result, we have a population that has been recovered for
    almost three decade and is at least an order of magnitude above
    established and agreed recovery goals yet is still listed. Sadly, the
    result is that science is devalued, partnerships are avoided, the
    public is disenchanted, and conservation suffers.
        Gray wolves are recovered in the United States. The science is
    clear; this species is recovered, secure, and recovery goals have been
    met many times over. This is why the federal government, and so many
    states, have appropriately supported delisting again and again.
    Congress should likewise follow science, recognize the recovery of this
    iconic species, and delist wolves.

                                     ______

        Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Dr. Roberts. I now recognize Dr.
    Servheen for 5 minutes.

        STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER SERVHEEN, RETIRED GRIZZLY BEAR
    RECOVERY COORDINATOR, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, MISSOULA,
                                MONTANA

        Dr. Servheen. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    Committee.
        I was the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Grizzly Bear
    Recovery Coordinator for 35 years. As such, I led the grizzly
    bear recovery program from its beginning until I retired in
    2016. I am currently the Board Chair and President of the
    Montana Wildlife Federation. I speak to you as a professional
    grizzly bear biologist.
        As a Fish and Wildlife Service employee, I wrote the
    grizzly bear recovery plan and the original delisting proposal
    for the Yellowstone grizzly bear population. That delisting was
    litigated in Federal court, and I participated in the legal
    defense, with the Department of Justice. I am very familiar
    with the process to recover and delist a species, and how these
    actions are challenged in Federal courts.
        It is important that you know that I believed in and
    promoted the eventual delisting of recovered grizzly bears and
    wolves and turning them over to state management. I had faith
    in the wildlife professionals and state fish and game agencies,
    and I believed that these state wildlife professionals would be
    good stewards to continue to carefully manage grizzly bears and
    wolves.
        This all changed in the past few years, when state
    legislators in Montana and Idaho passed new laws to
    dramatically reduce wolf numbers, and to place aggressive,
    indiscriminate wildlife-killing methods into grizzly bear
    habitat.
        To achieve successful delisting of grizzly bears and
    wolves, the Department of the Interior and the Secretary must
    evaluate three important factors: Is the habitat available for
    the species? Is it protected? Are the population numbers enough
    that the animals occupy all the available habitat? And are
    adequate regulatory mechanisms in place to ensure that the
    mortalities of the animals are carefully regulated?
        The primary threat to achieving grizzly delisting and
    maintaining delisted status for gray wolves are the threats to
    adequate regulatory mechanisms due to humans. Unfortunately,
    many people think that delisting only requires reaching a
    certain number of animals as required by the recovery plan. But
    this is incorrect.
        In addition to meeting population objectives, a mandatory
    requirement of the ESA when a species is to be delisted, is
    that adequate regulatory mechanisms are in place to ensure that
    the delisted populations remains healthy and recovered after
    delisting. Without adequate regulatory mechanisms, grizzly
    bears cannot be delisted, and wolves may be relisted. The lack
    of adequate regulatory mechanisms is due to political
    interference in the management of wildlife.
        It is important to realize that state and Federal agencies
    have programs and dedicated personnel in place to manage
    grizzly bears that kill livestock. Livestock losses to
    predators are real, and a valid concern because they impact
    people's livelihood and property. When there is a depredation,
    state and Federal specialists respond, capture, or kill the
    depredating animals. Most grizzly bears and wolves do not kill
    livestock.
        For perspective, in Montana in 2022, grizzly bears and
    wolves together killed 218 sheep and cattle, which is 8/1000 of
    1 percent of the cattle and sheep in Montana. Livestock
    producers were compensated $237,000 in 2022 for these losses to
    grizzly bears, wolves, and lions. Lions killed 59 animals, by
    the way.
        It doesn't take a lot of imagination to realize that if
    grizzly bears were delisted by congressional action and turned
    over to state management, that the legislatures and the
    governors would do the same thing to grizzly bears that they
    are currently doing to wolves. They would try to legislatively
    minimize grizzly numbers inside recovery zones, and eliminate
    most grizzly bears outside recovery zones.
        The ESA works because it is based on science and facts, and
    it specifically requires the listed status of any species must
    be judged solely on the best available scientific data. I urge
    you not to pass legislation to circumvent the requirements of
    the ESA and congressionally delist grizzly bears.
        Thank you for this opportunity to speak.

        [The prepared statement of Dr. Servheen follows:]
         Prepared Statement of Dr. Christopher Servheen, Retired USFWS
          Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator; President and Board Chair
                       of the Montana Wildlife Federation
                     on H.R. 764, H.R. 1245, and H.R. 1419

        Good morning. I was the USFWS Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator for
    35 years. As such, I led the grizzly bear recovery program from its
    beginning until I retired in 2016. I am currently the Board Chair and
    President of the Montana Wildlife Federation.
        My testimony will focus on the statutory requirements for
    determining if a species is able to be delisted from the Endangered
    Species Act (ESA), the current threats to grizzly bears and wolves, and
    the importance of the role of science and facts to the management of
    wildlife, particularly wildlife that have been or are currently listed
    under the ESA.
        I speak to you as a professional grizzly bear biologist. As a FWS
    employee, I wrote the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan and the original
    delisting proposal for the Yellowstone ecosystem grizzly population.
    That delisting was litigated in federal court, and I participated in
    the legal defense of the case with the Department of Justice. I am very
    familiar with the process to recover and delist a species and how these
    actions are challenged in federal courts. To give you an idea of the
    extent that I was involved in defending delisting, the legal challenge
    to the first Yellowstone Ecosystem delisting is designated in legal
    texts as Greater Yellowstone Coalition versus Servheen.
        It is important to know that I believed in and promoted the
    eventual delisting of recovered grizzlies and wolves and turning them
    over to state management. I had faith in the wildlife professionals in
    state fish and game agencies and I believed that these state wildlife
    professionals would be good stewards who would continue to carefully
    manage grizzly bears and wolves using science and facts after recovery
    and delisting.
        This all changed in the past few years when state legislatures in
    Montana and Idaho passed new laws to dramatically reduce wolf numbers
    and to place aggressive, indiscriminate wildlife killing methods into
    grizzly bear habitat. Science-based wildlife management in the states
    was replaced by anti-predator hysteria fueled by misinformation and
    emotion. Professional wildlife management by fish and game agency
    biologists was replaced by political intervention that overturned
    decades of sound wildlife policy.
        There have been bills introduced in the House of Representatives
    that direct the Secretary of Interior to remove ESA protection from
    grizzly bears and wolves. These bills do not consider the ongoing
    erosion of grizzly bear mortality regulatory mechanisms by state
    legislative actions and the threats to habitat security from increased
    recreation on public lands and increased development on private lands
    as more people move into grizzly habitat. These bills do not reference
    or rely on any scientific data. These bills override the intentions and
    direction of the ESA.
        There are currently 4 grizzly bear populations in the Lower 48
    states. The populations of grizzly bears in the Yellowstone and the
    Northern Continental Divide ecosystems are currently healthy after 42
    years of recovery effort. The grizzly populations in the Cabinet/Yaak
    and Selkirk ecosystems are much smaller and still at risk. It will be
    important to the genetic and demographic health of these populations to
    see them eventually connected by natural movements of grizzlies between
    them. The success of the grizzly bear recovery program is a tribute to
    the wisdom built into the ESA.

        To achieve successful delisting of grizzly bears and wolves, the
    Secretary of the Interior must evaluate these factors:

         Is the habitat of the species available in sufficient
                amount and productive enough to support a recovered
                population.

         Are the population numbers enough that the animals occupy
                all the available habitats to allow the population to be
                recovered and stable.

         Are adequate regulatory mechanisms in place to assure that
                the necessary habitat remains available into the future and
                are there regulatory mechanisms in place to control
                mortality in the future to sustainable levels.

        The primary threat to achieving successful delisting of grizzly
    bears and maintaining delisted status for grey wolves are the threats
    to adequate regulatory mechanisms to control mortality due to humans.
        Unfortunately, many people think that delisting only requires
    reaching a certain number of animals as required by the species
    Recovery Plan, but this is incorrect. In addition to meeting population
    objectives, a mandatory requirement of the ESA for a species to be
    delisted is that adequate mortality management mechanisms are in place
    to assure that grizzlies (and wolves) remain healthy and recovered
    after delisting. Healthy and recovered grizzly (and wolf) populations
    are populations that are carefully managed and distributed across their
    suitable available habitat.
        The greatest threat today to grizzly bears and grizzly bear
    delisting and to keeping wolves delisted is the state legislatures and
    governors who are passing and signing legislation that implements
    harmful anti-predator policies that are not informed by science. These
    polices from state legislatures will result in more dead grizzly bears
    and wolves and directly threaten the ability of state fish and game
    agencies to regulate grizzly and wolf mortality to sustainable levels.

        Some examples of harmful state legislation:

         Mandating the use of neck snares to trap wolves in grizzly
                habitat when grizzly and black bears are out of their dens.

         Allowing the use of hounds to hunt black bears in areas
                occupied by grizzly bears. The use of hounds to hunt black
                bears will result in conflicts and death for grizzly bears
                in the areas where hounds are used.

         Allowing the use of bait around wolf traps and neck
                snares. Bait will also attract grizzly bears, black bears,
                and other forest carnivores to these sites where they will
                be trapped, or neck snared and be killed or maimed.

         Paying people to try to kill wolves. This is a bounty, and
                it is unethical.

         Allowing shooting wolves at night over bait using
                spotlights and night-vision scopes. This is unethical and a
                violation of fair chase hunting.

        Black bear hound hunters and wolf trappers have every incentive to
    not to report conflicts and deaths to grizzly bears as public knowledge
    of these deaths may result in limitations to their hound hunting and
    wolf trapping and snaring. Less than 2% of people who hunt Montana
    black bears hunt with hounds. Hound hunters have no way of knowing what
    their hounds are chasing until they arrive at a scene of hounds being
    killed fighting with a grizzly bear or encounter an angry grizzly being
    chased by hounds. Since hound hunting of black bears and wolf trapping
    and snaring activities take place away from the public eye and away
    from agents of state wildlife management agencies, agencies will rarely
    if ever know of conflicts or dead grizzly bears due to hound hunting or
    wolf trapping and snaring. What this means in practice is that state
    fish and game agencies have no way to regulate the mortality of grizzly
    bears due to hound hunting or wolf trapping and snaring because they
    will never know about these deaths.
        Without adequate regulatory mortality regulatory mechanisms,
    grizzly bears cannot be delisted, and wolves may be relisted. The lack
    of regulatory mechanisms is due to political interference in the
    management of wildlife by the state fish and game agencies.
        If it is the intention of state agencies, legislatures, and/or the
    public that once delisting takes place, regulation of grizzly mortality
    can be relaxed, this is proof that there are in fact no adequate
    regulatory mechanisms ``in place''. ``In place'' means that regulatory
    mechanisms will continue after delisting to carefully manage and limit
    mortality so the species can remain healthy and recovered. Regulatory
    mechanisms are not a temporary mechanism to be used by state agencies
    and legislatures to get a species delisted, and once delisting is
    achieved, then eliminate or reduce regulation of mortality.
        It is important to realize that state and federal agencies have
    programs and dedicated personnel in place to manage grizzly bears that
    kill livestock. Livestock losses to predators are a real and valid
    concerns because they impact people's livelihood and property. When
    there is a depredation, state and Federal specialists respond and
    capture or kill the depredating animal. Most grizzly bears and wolves
    do not kill livestock. For perspective, in Montana in 2022, grizzly
    bears and wolves together killed 218 cattle and sheep, which is
    0.00822% of the cattle and sheep in Montana. There are also
    compensation programs in place to pay producers for livestock lost to
    predators. The Montana Livestock Loss Board paid livestock producers
    $237,985 in 2022 for livestock losses due to grizzly bears, wolves and
    lions (lions killed 59 animals).
        In summary, I was a strong proponent of grizzly bear recovery and
    delisting for decades when I managed to grizzly recovery program for
    FWS. I believed in and trusted the wildlife professionals in the state
    fish and game agencies to carefully manage delisted grizzly populations
    with science and facts.
        It doesn't take a lot of imagination to realize that if grizzly
    bears were delisted by Congressional action and turned over to state
    management, that the legislatures and governors would do the same thing
    to grizzlies that they are currently doing to wolves--they would likely
    try to legislatively minimize grizzly numbers inside recovery zones and
    eliminate most grizzlies outside recovery zones. 35 wildlife
    professionals agree with this concern and signed a public letter
    opposing delisting if legislators continue to use misinformation and
    anti-predator emotion to manage grizzly bears and wolves.
        If anti-carnivore legislation continues, we stand to lose much more
    than healthy carnivore populations. These laws threaten the very
    foundation of scientific wildlife management as well as the acceptance
    of hunting as a legitimate and non-political management tool. If state
    politicians are going to ignore science-based wildlife management and
    prescribe how many predators should be killed and the specific methods
    to be used to kill them, it will be difficult to ever manage most
    carnivore populations sustainably, ever achieve grizzly bear recovery,
    and have in place the adequate state regulatory mechanisms necessary
    for state agencies to credibly manage recovered grizzly bears and
    wolves.
        The ESA works because it is based on science and facts, and it
    specifically requires that the listed status of any species must be
    judged solely on the best available scientific data. I urge you to not
    pass legislation to circumvent the requirements of the ESA, and
    Congressionally delist grizzly bears.

        Thank you for this opportunity to testify.
                                     ______

        Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Dr. Servheen. I now recognize Mr.
    Rosendale to introduce our next witness, Ms. Johnson.

        Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It is my
    pleasure to introduce Ms. Karli Johnson, a rancher and small
    business owner from Choteau, Montana. Her family has ranched in
    the area for the last five generations. And I personally served
    with her mom, Kristy, in the Montana Legislature.
        It is good to see you.
        Karli has also been actively involved in issues that we are
    discussing today. She has previously served on the Livestock
    Loss Board, which is responsible for evaluating and reimbursing
    farmers and ranchers who have sustained livestock losses due to
    grizzly bears and other predators. Karli is a member of the
    Montana Farm Bureau, a graduate of Montana State University and
    the Real Montana Leadership Program. Karli and her husband,
    Ben, have two children, and enjoy watching them explore and
    learn out on the ranch.
        I am pleased to welcome her to Washington to share her
    expertise, and I look forward to hearing her testimony.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back.

    STATEMENT OF KARLI JOHNSON, RANCHER, SEVENS LIVESTOCK, CHOTEAU,
                                MONTANA

        Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman and members of the Committee. Thank you for having me
    here today, and thank you for considering this legislation.
        This issue is deeply important to my family and to my
    community. My name is Karli Johnson. My husband and I ranch on
    the eastern edge of the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem.
    We raise black Angus cattle just outside of Choteau, Montana,
    and we also have our two children there. We live in the heart
    of grizzly bear country, but we also live only 10 blocks west
    of Choteau Elementary School. So, we live in the heart of
    people country, too. That intersection gives us a front row
    seat to the interactions between grizzly bears and human
    beings.
        As ranchers, we understand that working with grizzly bears
    is part of our job. Our priority is to be good stewards of the
    land, and that doesn't stop at the grass and the crops; that
    extends to the wildlife. We understand that there needs to be a
    balance of species that includes grizzly bears. But the reality
    is, that does come at a cost. We have had to make financial and
    production sacrifices to be able to safely work. I have
    outlined those in my written testimony.
        My family has experienced livestock predation personally,
    and I will share that story with you, but I want to preface it
    with what my family experienced isn't even a tenth of what I
    have heard other producers in our area are experiencing in a
    single night.
        This occurred when I was 10 or so. We lost four sheep.
    There were only three of the four carcasses that were found.
    Financially, in today's dollars, that comes out to be about an
    $800 loss. That is the sort of number that would show up in the
    figures that I gave you in my written testimony and that Dr.
    Servheen noted in his testimony.
        The costs that don't come through on that are the ones that
    are more difficult to measure. We have since made the choice
    not to raise sheep, due to the risk of predators, and that does
    limit the scope of our business. And that only accounts for one
    of the adaptations and compromises that we have made to be able
    to live and work safely in bear country.
        What we still talk about from that experience, though, as a
    family, when we reflect back on it, is the fear that we faced
    as kids. My younger brother slept on my parents' bedroom floor
    for 2 years because, even at 7 or 8, he had an understanding
    that there wasn't a lot that stood between him and that grizzly
    bear, and if that grizzly bear could kill a sheep, it could
    kill him, too. At that time, we didn't have near the bear
    pressure that we do today, and my brother probably wasn't in
    any real danger.
        Only one time in my childhood was there a bear near our
    outbuildings, and we only saw tracks, we didn't see the bear.
    But that has changed, and so have the risks. When my husband
    and I moved back into the house I grew up in 5 years ago, that
    first summer alone, on three different occasions that we know
    of, there were grizzly bears walking through our yard at night.
    And this is with all of our attractants secured and dogs
    barking.
        That also escalated a couple of years later, when a young
    collared female bear walked through our yard in broad daylight,
    where our 4-year-old at the time spent most of his days riding
    his bicycle. He had just come inside because it was windy when
    that bear sauntered through. You see, that bear had a habit of
    being around human spaces. A few weeks before she was in our
    yard, she walked through the city park while 37 Boy Scouts were
    camping in it.
        Under current management, she was not labeled as a problem
    bear, because she hadn't been aggressive, and she hadn't caused
    any property damage, although she was clearly habituated.
        The situation with that bear escalated again the following
    spring when she was back, now with three cubs. I saw her on a
    morning in April, when she ran into a barn across the road from
    our house where we live that is now inside of a bear enclosure.
    Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks came out immediately to haze
    that bear, but she didn't go in the direction that they had
    hoped, and she ended up heading east, back toward town. At that
    same time, just 10 blocks away, 180 elementary school students
    were being dropped off and playing on the playground. In
    between the sounds of the cracker shells, I could hear the kids
    on the playground.
        Bears like this are becoming more and more common in our
    area, with population targets having been met for what some
    people believe is as long as a decade, if not two. The
    population is beyond the scope of the natural habitat, and
    bears are being pushed out to scavenge on the fringe of human
    civilization.
        That sow grizzly bear and I don't want to raise our babies
    together, and we are being put in a position that we have to.
    And it is not safe for either one of our families to do that.
    And that is why today we are asking for additional management
    tools for both me and that sow grizzly bear, so we don't have
    to raise our babies together. Thank you.

        [The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Karli Johnson, Sevens Livestock Co.
      on H.R. 1419, ``Comprehensive Grizzly Bear Management Act of 2023''

    Background and Bear Stories

        My husband and I ranch on the eastern edge of the Northern
    Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE). We raise Angus cattle and kids. We
    have a 2 year old little girl and 6 year old boy. We live in the heart
    of bear country, but also only a half mile west of Choteau Elementary,
    we live in people country too. The intersection of large apex
    predator's territory and American families can be a scary place to
    live. We witness those interactions repeatedly. I have a lifetime's
    worth of bear stories.
        Here are some of the highlights. When I was a kid, my mom used to
    go on evening walks. We would all walk a half a mile to the bridge on
    the Teton River and she would continue to the end of the road while my
    brothers and I played for 15 minutes or so in the creek. One night she
    got to the end of the road and turned around in time to see a bear
    heading toward us. Can you imagine having a bear in between you and
    your kids? It all turned out alright. It now lives as a terrifying
    childhood memory for my brothers and me. That is the only encounter I
    can remember with a bear that wasn't aggressive but wasn't afraid. Both
    my brothers have been charged by aggressive Grizzly bears on different
    occasions near the house we live in now.
        In more recent times with the increase in the bear population, the
    encounters have also increased. Our dog got swiped by a bear in our
    yard. The claw marks could be seen on his back. The dog survived. A
    couple summers ago, a bear walked through our yard, on our lawn, in
    broad daylight. The only reason our son wasn't riding his bike right
    where she walked was because it was windy that evening. Do you know any
    4 year old's that equipped to handle an encounter with a Grizzly Bear?
    I don't. Under current rule that bear is not designated as a problem
    bear because she had never been aggressive or damaged any property. She
    was obviously comfortable around humans though. A few weeks before she
    walked through our yard she walked through the city park. This was at
    night but there were 37 boy scouts camping in the city park that night.
    I would venture to say that those 37 were not quiet and that bear knew
    they were there.
        The old adage ``they are more afraid of you than you are of them''
    is no longer holding true. The level of comfort that we are
    experiencing from the bears in our area in and around human dwellings
    is like I have never seen before. Twice this fall Choteau Elementary
    students could not walk home from school because at 2:00 in the
    afternoon grizzly bears were spotted in the city limits blocks from the
    school. This is becoming more and more dangerous.
        Although, bears may not be aggressive. They are still predators.
    Given the circumstances they absolutely can kill. That female bear that
    walked through my yard and the city park is a great example of how that
    can change. She was back the following spring still frequently human
    areas, but she was not alone this time. She had three cubs with her.
    You do not need to be a wildlife biologist to know that most dangerous
    class of wildlife is a momma anything. When I saw them, they were
    running into a barn across the road from our house. I immediately
    reported it to our bear management specialist. They came out and hazed
    her. This was particularly concerning as she was a half a mile from the
    elementary school. On a school day, during recess. Between the cracker
    shells I could hear the kids playing on the playground. It was the
    third time that week that they had hazed her. She did not go West or
    North away from town but East back toward town and the school with
    children playing. She hunkered down in some brush. It took the
    authorities another three days to get authorization to relocate her if
    they could safely catch her and her three cubs alive. Catching a sow
    and cubs is not only difficult but dangerous. Momma bears tend to get
    upset when their babies are trapped, and baby bears tend to wonder into
    traps without their mothers. Relocation almost never works as Grizzly
    Bears have a strong draw to their home territory. With hazing clearly
    not working, relocation is the next viable option.
        The relocation sites are over capacity. That is one of the
    challenges with getting approval to relocate is that there just simply
    isn't a place to put them. When the relocation sites were set up, it
    was for a target population. The grizzly bear population in our area
    met that target by most estimations a decade ago some think up to two
    decades ago. Relocation and hazing are the two primary management tools
    under current rule. Both tools the population has outgrown.
        The delay in authorization adds to the challenge of the management.
    In the three days, it took to get authorization the sow and cubs were
    hazed for a fourth time. The delay can also lead authorities to lose
    dangerous bears. There was a 90 minute delay to get authorization to
    euthanize a different grizzly bear that was coming out of a road ditch
    and attacking vehicles. This bear was clearly very dangerous. He
    punctured the hood of a neighbor's pick-up with his canines and was
    swatting at windows with paws. Had that bear been lost and someone
    driven by it on an ATV. The results would have been deadly. A bear that
    attacked someone outside of Choteau was lost. They never were able to
    find this aggressive bear. The delay in the response is one of the
    management issues that will very easily be corrected by turning over
    management to the state.
        We understand that working with Grizzly Bears is part of our job.
    Our priority as ranchers is to be good stewards of the land. We have a
    generational understanding of the importance of putting the ecosystem
    that we work within first. That does not stop at the grass or crops, it
    includes wildlife. We understand that there needs to be a species
    balance that includes Grizzly Bears. The lack of tools for population
    management is putting us in a terrible position. The lack management is
    selecting for bears that are comfortable around human areas. That puts
    the safety of our families at risk.
        It does not have to be this way. Not all bears are comfortable
    around human spaces but without population management those bears are
    at a disadvantage. Those bears are not benefiting from scavenging
    around human spaces, eating grain out of fields or energy rich placenta
    out of calving pastures. It's not just the people that need more
    management tools. It is also the good bears that are respectful of
    humans.
    Adapting to Working and Living in Bear Country

        We recognize that living in bear country means that we will need to
    adapt to be respectful of this great omnivore's needs. Below I have
    listed the adaptations that we have made to our own ranch and
    lifestyle. I share this to be clear that we have made all the
    adjustments we can. These have real financial, production and lifestyle
    costs.

         Changed flood irrigation

              --   We do not irrigate at night anymore. Our flood
            irrigation infrastructure is set up for 8 hour sets and we are
            now doing 12. This decreases our yields and stand life.

         Change heifer calving date

              --   We changed our calving date for the animals that need to
            calve at home on the river bottom to earlier when the bears are
            hopefully hibernating. Calving in February in Montana is hard.
            This year the weather was fine. Some years the weather is
            brutal. In 2021, it did not get above 15 below zero for two
            weeks while we had around 70 calves born. Those conditions are
            hard on the cattle and us.

         Do not raise vulnerable livestock

              --   We do not raise sheep or pigs as they are more
            susceptible to grizzly bear predation.

         Erected a Grizzly Bear Fence

              --   We put up a five foot woven wire fence with two electric
            strands. One on top and one on the outside bottom to prevent
            bears from climbing over or under the fence. The fence
            encompasses about 14 acres including our house, calving lots
            and barns. The project cost was proximately $17,000. We
            received a Livestock Loss Board Grant for $10,899.

         Always on alert when fencing or spraying weeds near brush.

              --   We have a legal obligation to manage noxious weeds and
            repair fences. Many weeds are found in prime bear habit. Fences
            along river bottoms are notoriously difficult to maintain. Our
            area does not have access to childcare. Our kids work with us.
            Carrying bear spray with children around is dangerous.

         No longer take evening walks.

         No longer go swimming or fishing in the creek without
                extreme caution.

    Losses Related to Grizzly Bears in Montana

        We have not personally experienced livestock losses due to
    predation. My parents did when they had sheep and lived where we do
    now. Below are two graphs that show the trends in prediction in
    Montana. This is based on data from the Livestock Loss Board. The
    Livestock Loss Board reimburses ranchers for livestock that has been
    confirmed by US Fish and Wildlife Services as being killed be a wolf,
    mountain lion or grizzly bear. Only losses that can be confirmed are
    compensated. There are many more kills that cannot be confirmed that
    are not included in this data. It is also worth mentioning that this
    incentives ranchers to try to find fresh kills while bears are often
    still present. Putting them at times in great danger.

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        .epsThe chart above reflects all of Montana not just the NCDE. The
    number reflects both confirmed and suspected kills.

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        .epsTotal dollars of claims paid by the Livestock Loss Board by
    year in Montana. 2022 numbers are to date. There are still claims being
    made for 2022.

        There is also a cost associated with adapting to bear country for
    the city of Choteau. They have been asked to get bear proof garbage
    cans. The estimated cost 18 months ago for just the cans was over one
    million dollars. The specialty garbage truck would be an estimated
    additional million dollars. The city is also upgrading their street
    lights and adding lighting on the edge of town to make it easier to see
    a Grizzly bear if they are present. The cost of this project is
    estimated at $500,000. While there is grant funding available for
    livestock loss mitigation, no grant funding has been found for
    preventing human encounters. The city is expected to cover they entire
    cost. The city of Choteau has around 1700 residents. The cost of this
    prevention work comes out to be $1470 per resident.
        While dollar figures can be placed on livestock lost, prevention
    work done, dollar figures cannot be given to the loss of human life
    that has occurred due to Grizzly Bear conflict. Those live serve as a
    solemn reminder of just how important this work is and how delicate
    human and bear relationships are.
    Conclusion

        Current management has been set up for a maximum population that
    has been met. This larger population needs a different management
    strategy. Delisting the NCDE population of Grizzly Bears will give us
    the opportunity to implement the strategies needed to have a safe and
    sustainable population of Grizzly Bears. It would also give us the
    flexibility to adjust management to ensure that we are serving the
    bears and their human neighbors well.
        Thank you for your time in considering the delisting of NCDE
    Grizzly Bear population. This is an issue that is deeply important to
    my family, community, and our good bear neighbors.

                                     ______

        Mr. Bentz. Thank you, and I thank all the witnesses for the
    testimony and for traveling to be with us today.
        I will now start recognizing Members for 5 minutes for
    questions, and we will begin with Congressman LaMalfa.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
    witnesses as we navigate a very difficult situation in rural
    America, especially the West.
        Dr. Servheen, in your work with the bears and the wolves,
    how effective is relocation of these animals in that work?
        Dr. Servheen. Congressman, we try to relocate bears the
    first time, depending on the offense. Bears can be relocated,
    and sometimes stay out of trouble. Sometimes they return to the
    site where they were captured. Sometimes they get back into
    trouble again. If the bear comes back to a site after it has
    been relocated, it is usually removed.
        But the decision to relocate the bear is based on the
    initial offense itself. If the bear is aggressive toward
    people, or habituated where it is really relaxed around
    people--habituation is a loss of normal fear of humans--we may
    remove that bear the first time.
        So, relocation is a tool. It sometimes is used, depending
    on the offense.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Define ``remove'' versus ``relocate'' for me,
    please.
        Dr. Servheen. Removal is the bear is euthanized, it is
    killed. And relocation is, it is given a new place to live. We
    put a radio collar on it and track it.
        Mr. LaMalfa. OK. All right. As the population mounts, more
    and more of the bear, how much more difficult is it going to be
    to constantly track and move, if you have a non-aggressive
    bear, so to speak, how much effort is going to be needed to
    constantly track more and more relocated bears?
        Dr. Servheen. Well, it takes a little bit of effort. The
    radio collars are satellite collars, so they automatically give
    the location to the researcher. He doesn't have to go out and
    find the bear. We know where the bear is, based on its
    satellite location. So, it is not a lot of work to track them.
    It is a lot of work to handle them, and capture them, and move
    them.
        Mr. LaMalfa. OK. Deputy Director Guertin, you don't seem to
    be happy with the legislation to move forward on the delisting
    that these bills are up for today. How long do you expect the
    process will be for the Service to work through its own
    delisting process at this point, when it can be interpreted
    that there is a fairly abundant population of both the bear and
    the wolf?
        Mr. Guertin. Thank you for your question, Congressman. We
    are in the middle of those processes right now for the grizzly
    bear. We received three petition processes from the states of
    Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. We published what is called a 90-
    day finding that determined whether or not we would proceed and
    go to a formal evaluation or rulemaking. And that was announced
    in January.
        So, that kicked off what is called a 12-month finding, or a
    biological status review of the bears. The target date for that
    would be one year from January. So, next January.
        And then, in the wolf, there are a couple of moving parts
    there, as well. We had delisted, as some of the witnesses had
    pointed out, wolves in the Lower 48. That was litigated and a
    court overturned it. We entered mediation under the court,
    and----
        Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, let me jump in there, sir. We were
    admonished that legislators can't possibly know anything about
    delisting earlier today and to let the experts in the field.
    Now you have a court stepping in and blocking, based on maybe
    an environmental group deciding they didn't do enough study.
        So, where does the rubber meet the road on who the experts
    are, if it is not Congress, as the legally-elected
    representatives of the people, versus courts?
        Mr. Guertin. Congressmen, the Administration believes that
    the way to get there to a successful and durable delisting is
    to follow due process, and follow the law outlined by the
    Endangered Species Act and by the Administrative Procedures
    Act. That includes a lot of public involvement and engagement,
    and makes sure our tribal partners have their voice heard, as
    well. We are doing----
        Mr. LaMalfa. What about our ranching partners?
        Mr. Guertin. Yes, sir. There is a lot of opportunity to
    talk to people who live and work on the landscape through the
    public involvement, public comment period, and we work with----
        Mr. LaMalfa. I'm sorry, I have to reclaim my time, thank
    you. How much time is going to be spent on ecogrief training,
    as we have been hearing about? And with that, are we going to
    have debt, national debt grief training, as well?
        Mr. Guertin. Thank you for your question, Congressman.
        Sure, we just received a document request from Chairman
    Bentz, co-signed by many of the Members here today on ecogrief
    training. We are working on that right now. We will comply with
    your request, Mr. Chairman, just to assure you of that. We are
    doing the data call. We are in the middle of it right now, sir.
        This was not a universal training requirement for all
    Service employees. Actually, I think about 100, 150 may have
    been on a couple of webinars. There were probably four or five
    webinars, total. And I believe the cost was about $10,000
    overall for this voluntary training, sir. It was not mandatory.
    It was pretty small, and we will get you the full details when
    we do the document call.
        Mr. LaMalfa. OK. I appreciate that. You understand how
    ridiculous this looks to normal people, though, with 9 to 5
    jobs across the country that----
        Mr. Guertin. Sorry, the wind took that, sir.
        Mr. LaMalfa. Yes. I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. LaMalfa. I now recognize Ranking
    Member Huffman for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to our
    witnesses.
        Dr. Servheen, we have heard already in this hearing many
    times this notion that delisting should just be population-
    based, almost formulaic, a math exercise. In your testimony,
    you talked about this perception that delisting only requires
    reaching a certain number of animals. Can you explain why there
    is more to it than that?
        Dr. Servheen. Thank you for your question, Congressman.
        ESA requires five factors to be considered in any listing
    or delisting. The main ones for grizzly bears are the numbers
    of animals, the amount of habitat, and the issue of adequate
    regulatory mechanisms.
        The adequacy of regulatory mechanisms is critically
    important for the delisting because, if you pull the ESA rug
    out from underneath the species, the regulatory mechanisms that
    remain under state management should be such that the
    population remains recovered and the habitat remains available
    for the bears. And if there are no adequate regulatory
    mechanisms in place, then you can see erosion of the population
    through excessive mortality, or you can see loss of habitat
    through activities, say, of public land management agencies if
    they choose to do things on the national forest, for example,
    that would displace grizzly bears.
        So, the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms is just as
    important as the numbers of animals, because once we pull that
    rug out from underneath the species, we want to see that
    population remain recovered from now on into the future.
        Mr. Huffman. So, if maybe we had reached a certain recovery
    number, but one or more states had policies and programs that
    were spring-loaded to kill lots of these animals, that would be
    a consideration. Is that fair?
        Dr. Servheen. That is correct. There has to be adequate
    regulatory mechanisms in place, particularly for human-caused
    mortalities, so that when the ESA doesn't apply, that state
    regulation prevents excessive numbers of animals dying after
    delisting.
        Mr. Huffman. Now, there was a time when you advocated for
    delisting both the gray wolf and the grizzly bear. But this
    concern about state regulatory mechanisms and practices changed
    your mind, is that right, and could you explain that a little
    more?
        Dr. Servheen. That is correct, sir. I was the main
    proponent of delisting grizzly bears. I wrote the first
    delisting rule. I participated in the defense of that rule and
    the court action that was litigation to overturn it.
        The reason that I am concerned now is that we are seeing
    politicians at the state level put forth mortality mechanisms
    based on an anti-predator philosophy in the grizzly bear
    habitat that I feel would risk the future of grizzly bears in
    many places in these states.
        For example, placement of neck snares with the association
    of bait into grizzly bear habitat, extending wolf trapping,
    using wolf traps and neck snares in the grizzly bear habitat
    when the bears are still out of their dens. These things are
    risky to grizzly bears, and in many cases, we may never know
    that bears die because of interactions with these activities.
    And without knowledge of the mortalities that are caused by
    these things, the state management authorities do not have the
    ability to regulate mortality.
        And this change has only happened since 2020. So, it is a
    fairly recent thing, and it made me change my mind about the
    future of grizzly bears.
        Mr. Huffman. All right. I appreciate you sharing that
    perspective. And I want to use your testimony to pivot to Mr.
    Guertin from the Fish and Wildlife Service, which is currently
    conducting a 12-month status review in response to petitions
    from Montana politicians to delist the greater Yellowstone and
    Northern Continental Divide grizzly populations.
        In that status review process, the Fish and Wildlife
    Service states, and I quote, ``The impact of recently enacted
    state laws and regulations affecting these two grizzly bear
    populations is of concern, and needs to be evaluated.'' Can you
    just share with us briefly why these reference laws and
    regulations have an effect on delisting decisions?
        Mr. Guertin. Thank you for your question, Ranking Member
    Huffman. What we are looking at is the recently passed
    legislation included language that would allow the take of
    grizzly bears, both in personal defense as well as in
    protecting livestock.
        The ESA regs in place allow only take if it is in defense
    of people or defense of other people, as well. So, the concern
    is this might empower people to think they could just start
    taking grizzly bears while they are still listed as a species.
    That is part of what we are looking at in the status review
    that is ongoing.
        Mr. Huffman. And it makes it harder to delist, right?
        Mr. Guertin. We have no conclusion at this point, sir. We
    are looking at the science, the adequacy of these regulatory
    mechanisms through this process.
        Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Bentz. Thank you. I recognize myself for 5 minutes. I
    want to start with Ms. Johnson.
        Ms. Johnson, I am from a ranching family, and I actually
    went out and visited one of my brother's ranches that I grew up
    on just 5 days ago. A very difficult winter, 30 inches of snow.
    And he had lost 12 calves to coyote depredation just the day or
    two before. That is a big number. That was almost--I don't want
    to characterize that which Dr. Servheen said about how much
    money was paid as demeaning, but it seems to me that the folks
    that aren't on the marginal edge of everything, which a rancher
    is, seem to suggest that somehow we ranchers have to bear the
    cost, or whether you are a farmer, you have to bear the cost,
    or whether you are a person who is trying to irrigate, and then
    suddenly has their water cut off because of the assertion that
    the fish need the water more than you do, it seems odd that
    that cost is pushed on to people like you.
        Yet, I looked at your testimony, and I saw all of the
    things you have done to try to get along with the bears. There
    is a long list. So, the cost to you is far more than the loss
    of animals, far more. Yet, we don't hear a peep about that from
    those who suggest that they should not be delisted, or that the
    control of this dangerous circumstance should be turned over to
    the local people. All we get is this assertion that somehow we
    do the wrong thing. Yet, you are doing the right thing.
        If this was turned over to the state, would you suddenly
    start doing the wrong thing again? Because that is the
    assertion we are hearing.
        Ms. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that question. And
    as you said, we have made a lot of adaptations to be able to
    live with grizzly bears, and we recognize that they need to be
    a part of our landscape.
        We, as ranching, as producers, we are very motivated to no
    longer be subjected to the rules of the Endangered Species Act.
    We are ready to do the work to make hard management decisions
    to be able to responsibly manage grizzly bears locally. We
    don't want bears walking through our yard in broad daylight or
    within blocks of our city schools. And we will do whatever it
    takes to be able to maintain local control and responsibly
    manage grizzly bears.
        Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
        Dr. Roberts, you mentioned litigation in your testimony.
    And I have noticed--I am a lawyer, I see how other attorneys
    take the opportunity, shall we call it, that the Endangered
    Species Act provides, and along with NEPA and others, to use
    litigation as a weapon with many purposes other than merely
    achieving that which is reflected in the pleadings. Have you
    seen such a thing?
        Dr. Roberts. Yes, I have. I think one of the unfortunate
    consequences of this is that the motivation often, perhaps, of
    the Service would be to avoid getting sued, as opposed to
    necessarily doing the right thing for conservation. I think
    that the relentless litigation has negative consequences, for
    sure.
        Mr. Bentz. And when you say ``relentless litigation,'' to
    an attorney who is attempting to stop something from happening,
    have you seen litigation used as a means of delaying that which
    otherwise is going to occur or might occur?
        Have you seen litigation used in that fashion, as a tool of
    delay or creation of an obstacle to achieving something that we
    are all trying to get done?
        Dr. Roberts. Yes, absolutely.
        Mr. Bentz. And can you give us an example of it?
        Dr. Roberts. Well, I think the litigation surrounding the
    gray wolf is an example of that. There is no doubt that the
    gray wolf is recovered. And one way or another, sometime down
    the road, delisting will occur. So, this relentless litigation
    is just delaying that process.
        Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
        And in the few seconds I have left, Mr. Nesvik, Dr.
    Servheen mentioned a number of consequences that would occur.
    It seemed to me that many of those weren't applicable, or
    perhaps already have been met. Can you comment on what he was
    saying?
        Mr. Nesvik. Mr. Chairman, certainly. I think what you are
    referring to are regulatory mechanisms that Dr. Servheen
    indicated may not be in place in the states to deal with the
    post-delisting grizzly bear population. And I would certainly
    disagree.
        In our state, we have gone to great lengths to ensure that
    we have laws and regulations on the books that very
    conservatively manage grizzly bears within the core of their
    suitable habitat within that area that was designated by the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as suitable habitat. We have
    laws on the books to protect female grizzly bears. We have the
    ability to conduct conflict management in those areas outside
    of the core, where we have heard a lot of testimony today where
    conflict management with humans has been a problem. We have the
    ability to quickly----
        Mr. Bentz. I am going to have to cut you off, because we
    are over time. But I appreciate your testimony very, very much.
        And with that, I am now going to recognize Representative
    Magaziner for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Magaziner. Thank you, Chairman. I am going to focus my
    remarks and questions on H.R. 886, the Save Our Seas 2.0
    Amendments Act, and I think that this is an example of a bill
    that ought to have strong bipartisan support tackling a very
    important issue.
        Ocean pollution is of great concern to my constituents in
    Rhode Island. It impacts our economy. It impacts our quality of
    life. It is of particular concern to our hospitality and
    tourism industry. It has wildlife impacts. And this ought to be
    an area where we all can come together as a Congress to
    continue to move the ball forward.
        The original Save Our Seas Act was signed into law by
    President George W. Bush. Save Our Seas 2.0 passed this
    Congress with unanimous bipartisan support in both chambers,
    and my hope is that the Save our Seas 2.0 Amendments Act that
    we are discussing today will have similar universal bipartisan
    support.
        One of the aspects of Save Our Seas 2.0 that I think is
    particularly important is the provision that required NOAA to
    study the feasibility of developing a nationwide vessel
    recycling program, because for many boat owners it is a
    cumbersome and difficult process currently to dispose of old
    vessels in an environmentally friendly manner.
        But the study that was released last month showed that
    there are ways forward, and in particular builds on a success
    of a pilot project led by the Rhode Island Marine Trades
    Association and the Rhode Island Sea Grant that showed the
    promise of using fiberglass boat materials to help with the
    production of cement, among other uses. So, as a result of this
    work, several states are now considering establishing formal
    vessel recycling programs.
        My first question is for Ms. Wallace.
        Most owners dispose of fiberglass boats at landfills,
    because it is the cheapest option. So, what can Federal
    lawmakers do to make vessel recycling programs more widely
    available and affordable for consumers to participate in?
        Ms. Wallace. Yes, thank you for that question. The report
    did show that it is feasible, it is possible to recycle
    fiberglass vessels. However, it is cost prohibitive at the
    moment. It is cheaper to do so at a landfill. So, we would have
    to think about how to incentivize the process and make it less
    expensive to not have the vessels end up in a landfill. That
    would be the first thing.
        And then also, at the state level, there are also things
    like vessel turn-in programs that can allow the owners to
    dispose of vessels free of charge that then could be used to
    recycle them.
        Mr. Magaziner. OK. So, we need to find some funding to help
    bend the cost curve, so to speak, to make these programs more
    economical for boat owners.
        Save our Seas 2.0 also requires NOAA to develop a pilot
    program looking at the feasibility of an incentive program for
    fishermen to remove marine debris found at sea. Can you talk
    about the implementation of this project and where it stands?
        Ms. Wallace. Sure. We have funded a number of projects in
    the past that work with fishermen to go out and collect lost
    fishing gear in closed seasons, and get compensated for them,
    which have been very successful. We are implementing a new
    study in Mississippi, with partners in Mississippi, to
    incentivize the collection of trash while at sea, which is a
    new project for us and required in Save Our Seas 2.0. We issued
    a grant to those partners, and it is active and underway. We
    look forward to reporting on the success of the program.
        Mr. Magaziner. All right, thank you. We will look forward
    to that.
        And I will just highlight again that these issues are of
    vital importance, not only to Rhode Islanders, but to coastal
    communities all across the country. There is an economic
    component to this that is very important. There is a lifestyle
    component that is very important.
        And what I think is important in particular about this
    Amendment Act that we are considering today is that it
    recognizes the international nature of the problem. Ocean
    pollution requires not only national collaboration, but
    international collaboration, as well. So, the amendments that
    are proposed, I think, will make it easier for the United
    States to partner with other nations, foundations,
    organizations to tackle the issue of ocean pollution.
        I thank the Committee for bringing this bill forward, and I
    certainly encourage all of my colleagues to support it.
        With that, I will yield back my time.
        Mrs. Boebert [presiding]. The Chair now recognizes the
    gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Luna, for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Luna. I just want to start out by saying that I think
    the initial intent of the Endangered Species Act was done in
    good faith. But, obviously, from what we are hearing today and
    over, I think, what has happened in the last 50 years, it is
    evident that this system is in need of reform.
        Only 3.7 percent of species have been delisted in 50 years
    since the ESA was first enacted, despite the science showing
    that these species can and should be delisted, and I think that
    that is exactly what is happening. And the points that my
    colleagues are bringing up with the grizzly bear and gray wolf
    populations, which have been steadily rising and even
    surpassing the goal for recovery, which I believe should be
    celebrated instead of, I think, some of the conversation that
    we are having right now, where people are saying that it is not
    a success when it is.
        And I ask for unanimous consent from the Chairwoman to
    submit these graphics into the record.

        Mrs. Boebert. Without objection.

        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        .epsBehind me, I have the green sea turtle, but also to a
    West Indian manatee. So, it should say, ``Save the sea turtles
    and manatees.'' What we are seeing is some of these populations
    have been downlisted to threatened from endangered or vice
    versa. What we are finding is that the Florida Fish and
    Wildlife Conservation Commission provided preliminary data that
    showed that there were over 1,101 manatee mortalities in 2021,
    and that is nearly double the record for 2020.
        And another example of impacts would be the green sea
    turtle population, which is currently protected as an
    endangered species under ESA. But some estimates have shown
    that the green sea turtles have faced over a 90 percent
    decrease in population over the past half century.
        So, obviously, we want to do our good diligence for future
    generations to protect these species, but I believe that when
    you have other animals that are no longer endangered, it takes
    away the resources that I would need and that we need in
    Florida to actually protect the species behind me.
        So, my question would be, really, for Ms. Wallace. We are
    having a huge problem right now with some outside entities that
    are refusing to acknowledge that our beaches are some of the
    breeding grounds for these animal populations, specifically the
    green sea turtle. One of them would be the Army Corps of
    Engineers.
        Do you think that it should be an obligation and
    responsibility for some of these entities to provide services
    in order to protect these species?
        Ms. Wallace. Within the NOAA Marine Debris Program, we
    certainly comply with all of the ESA requirements for any
    project that we undertake, or conduct, or fund.
        I think, to give you a more comprehensive answer, I would
    like to respond in writing.
        Mrs. Luna. OK. Yes, no worries. And it is really just kind
    of open to you guys, because what I am finding is if these
    programs are set up--obviously, if we are taking away resources
    that would be available to these animals from the grizzly bear
    and the gray wolf, I think, as a whole, that that doesn't do a
    service to especially Floridians and, obviously, future
    generations that want to preserve these animals.
        So, I am going to yield the rest of my time to Mr. Tiffany.
        Mr. Tiffany. Thank you very much, and you have brought up a
    terrific point, the gentlewoman from Florida.
        Dr. Servheen, do you know a guy named Charlie Wooley?
        Dr. Servheen. I do not, sir.
        Mr. Tiffany. OK. Mr. Guertin, do you know Charlie Wooley, a
    longtime Fish and Wildlife----
        Mr. Guertin. Yes, I do, Congressman. He recently retired.
        Mr. Tiffany. Yes, so I am going to read this quote of his,
    as he was about to retire. ``We get frustrated when we get put
    back into a situation where we have to manage a resource that
    has really been recovered and should be managed by our state
    and tribal partners. That takes us away from dealing with some
    of the other issues that need our attention.'' Do you agree
    with his comment?
        Mr. Guertin. I believe Charlie Wooley was making those
    comments as he was leaving the active service, sir. As an
    agency, we stick by our position that the way forward is what
    we have outlined here, sir.
        Mr. Tiffany. Sure, fair enough. But here you have it from
    Charlie Wooley, been in the business for 44 years. On his way
    out he says, we are not able to deal with some of the things
    that we should be dealing with because we are wasting our time
    on species that have recovered.
        And Mrs. Luna just brought up a perfect example: the sea
    turtles. They could be dedicating more time and energy to that,
    yet there are species that have been recovered that the
    litigants are fighting about. It is really a huge problem.
        Dr. Servheen, do you care about Ms. Johnson's family?
        Dr. Servheen. I care deeply about Ms. Johnson's family and
    the problems that she has. And she and I had a good discussion
    before the hearing, and I am fully in support of her, and have
    concerns about how things are being handled around her place.
        Mr. Tiffany. But you really don't want to delist the
    grizzly to help her out, to ultimately get a solution to the
    problem.
        Dr. Servheen. Well, I would like to see a solution to the
    problem, sir. The problem, as I see it, is not really Ms.
    Johnson's problem. The problems are being created at the state
    legislature level in Idaho and Montana.
        Mr. Tiffany. It is her problem, you are wrong about that.
        And I yield back.
        Mrs. Boebert. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Grijalva for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Deputy Director, Mr. Guertin, let me talk a little bit
    about tribal consultation. Each Federal agency, no matter the
    nature of the relations with tribal government, is included in
    the U.S. trust and treaty obligations to Indian Country in
    terms of tribal consultation. And it is borne out of this
    obligation, it needs to be upheld.
        Today, we are potentially talking about two species that
    are culturally and spiritually significant to many tribes. So,
    as part of this process, Mr. Guertin, how does Fish and
    Wildlife carry out meaningful consultation when we are going
    through a delisting process?
        Mr. Guertin. Thank you for your question, Ranking Member
    Grijalva. We take our responsibilities very seriously.
        Certainly, Secretary Haaland and Director Williams have
    sent down guidance for the agencies on the importance of our
    role. Whether we are working at a national level or a project
    level, we try from Day 1 to make sure we have a meaningful and
    impactful conversation, and we have demonstrated that, I think,
    in other areas, as well.
        For example, with the recently-enacted Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law, Secretary Haaland herself led a national
    conversation with tribal partners that kicked off the regional
    and site-specific for all leaders in the Department to
    participate in. So, the tone and policy are set, and then that
    is what we aspire to do, sir.
        Mr. Grijalva. The obligation, the trust responsibility,
    every stakeholder should be at the table. But there is a
    requirement in terms of tribal consultation that I am glad you
    are taking very seriously.
        Again, I have a follow-up question. The President's budget
    includes a request for more funding for section 7 ESA
    consultation and the authority to take those funds, transfer
    those funds to the Fish and Wildlife Service from other
    agencies for Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
    consultations.
        This money, this authority will help the agency process
    permits and conduct the section 7 consultation more efficiently
    and more effectively, trying to meet, as the other $1 billion
    that is in there is meeting that threshold that was set by
    President Trump and Senator Manchin of a 2-year turnaround in
    consultation.
        ESA is another target, like NEPA. It is your fault because
    it is taking so long. Tell me about how this transfer is so
    important to deal with that particular complaint of time.
        Mr. Guertin. Thank you for your question, Ranking Member.
        We have a lot of projects coming online right now, whether
    they are infrastructure, energy, utilities, port dredging, you
    name it, across the width and breadth of the country. We have a
    responsibility to consult and work on Endangered Species Act
    compliance issues with all of the project proponents. There are
    about 35,000 of them coming online as we speak. And, certainly,
    the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law had a lot more of that, some
    big highway overpasses, highways, railroads, you name it.
        So, the President's budget is proposing a requested
    increase of about $50 million that will allow us to hire
    several dozen additional biologists on the ground.
        The transfer language you are talking about would give us
    the opportunity to work directly with partner agencies: Corps
    of Engineers, Forest Service, BLM.
        And we are not just sitting on our hands waiting for this
    funding to come available. We are using a lot of innovative
    techniques now, such as our new IPaC tool, where project
    planning can essentially get a pre-qualification for a mortgage
    working through us on our online tools there. So, we are trying
    to get ahead of these as this surge in projects comes online.
        Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. I mentioned that because the
    constant refrain and complaint is it is taking too long, it is
    the agency's fault, i.e. it is the law's fault. And our side
    has said consistently that you have to resource those areas in
    order to be effective. And if we are meeting the threshold on
    one side, I think this request by the President in the budget
    is not only logical, it deals with the backlog issue, and it
    deals directly with the complaint.
        I have another question for Dr. Servheen, but I will send
    that in writing, because my time is up.
        I yield back, Madam Chair.
        Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, and the Chair recognizes Mr.
    Duarte for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Duarte. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Johnson, I'm sorry I missed your testimony, but I read
    it, and I very much value your experience. I farm wine grapes
    up in the Sierra Nevada, and I have black bear friends that
    visit me. When one black bear friend visited me in 2004 or
    2006--I forget now--I didn't get too concerned, but he brought
    his girlfriend the next year, and the following year they had
    kids.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Duarte. In 1982, California had, best estimates, 10,000
    to 15,000 black bears. Today, with conservation hunting in
    place, that population is up to 30,000 to 40,000, and we are
    having dialogues over, is this too many black bears? And the
    black bear is a friendly bear, it is not a grizzly bear. Very
    few, unless you corner them in your kitchen, eating out of your
    refrigerator near Lake Tahoe, very few negative human
    encounters with a black bear. They are pretty shy. I wouldn't
    want grizzly bears in the Sierra Nevada, but I am afraid they
    are coming to a forest near me soon. And as a property owner
    and a farmer, I am very concerned.
        In 2007, a delisting effort was made by the administration
    to delist the grizzly bears. It went to court, of course. In
    2009, the judge ruled that because the Habitat Conservation
    Plan for the grizzly bears didn't forecast the results of the
    whitebark pine with the global warming effects, that there may
    be an insufficient habitat stability.
        So, we can't control the grizzly bears until we solve
    global warming. Isn't global warming great? You can just do
    anything with it. It is like a wonderful little widget that
    survives any political application we apply it to.
        But nonetheless, grizzly bear populations continue to grow,
    even as the whitebark pine suffers global warming. At this
    point, Dr. Servheen and Dr. Guertin, should we disqualify the
    whitebark pine argument as a major threat to grizzly bear
    habitat and sustainability?
        Dr. Servheen. Thank you for that question, Congressman.
    Indeed, that was the case that I worked to defend. And in fact,
    after that ruling by the judge, we sent USGS out to determine
    whether the decline in whitebark was a threat to grizzly bears.
    They produced a comprehensive report that said the decline in
    whitebark was not a threat to grizzly bears. So, that has been
    dealt with.
        Mr. Duarte. So, that is gone. Now what we really have here
    is a dislike of the most effective management practice we have,
    which is conservation hunting. We just have groups that don't
    want to see somebody shoot a grizzly bear in sport hunting.
    Isn't that the case that we are up against right now?
        The states don't regulate it closely enough to make sure it
    is nearly impossible to manage the population of grizzly bears
    with sport hunting? Because that is free. As a taxpayer,
    somebody pays to shoot that bear, have it stuffed, put it in
    front of your fireplace, make a rug, whatever. It is free, and
    it works well in so many species.
        Why aren't we more open to it with management of grizzly
    bears to protect Ms. Johnson's and probably, within a decade or
    two, my farms?
        Dr. Servheen. That question is for me, sir?
        Mr. Duarte. Sure, please.
        Dr. Servheen. There are certainly some people that are
    opposed to hunting on philosophical grounds, and that is some
    of the opposition to delisting grizzly bears, because some
    people don't want grizzly bears hunted.
        Grizzly bears can be sustainably hunted so that you can
    have a steady population with careful management that--you
    know, to the Fish and Wildlife Service, hunting is not the
    issue. But some people do oppose it on philosophy.
        I want to make a point, though, that hunting in and of
    itself will not reduce human-bear conflicts unless the hunting
    removes almost all the bears.
        Mr. Duarte. Well, in hunting conflicts, the human is going
    to win most of the time, and Ms. Johnson's family won't be at
    risk, or less so.
        Let me move on. We have Endangered Species Act issues all
    over the country. I live in the Central Valley of California.
    We have the delta smelt and the salmon. We have the forest
    fires in the Sierra Nevada decimating, probably having a bigger
    negative effect on black bear populations than anything humans
    could venture to do, because we have protected the spotted owl
    through a single species management strategy that came out of
    the Fish and Wildlife Services.
        We are flooding our Central Valley with water right now
    because we haven't built the dams we need to hold our water
    resources. We haven't dredged our rivers because Fish and
    Wildlife won't give Army Corps of Engineers a permit to dredge
    our rivers to keep our community safe. I have a community in my
    district, Le Grand, that has flooded twice in 5 years, and on
    the heels of COVID the children are not going to school today
    because their school has been destroyed by flooding again,
    because the local interest could not pull the Army Corps of
    Engineers Fish and Wildlife permit.
        Thank you to the Chair. I will yield back.
        Mrs. Boebert. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair
    recognizes Mrs. Peltola for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Peltola. Thank you, Madam Chair. I apologize for being
    late.
        First of all, I find this Committee so interesting, I am
    always learning something new. And I am surprised that we are
    taking up endangered species and save our oceans, or the Save
    Our Seas, at the same time. It reminds me of some of our Tribal
    Council meetings, where it is like this really holistic
    conversation all at once. We are not sticking to one single
    subject, as we usually do here.
        And I would love to talk about some of the endangered
    species issues. Wolves and bears are a very big deal in Alaska,
    and have a lot to do with our food security or insecurity at
    any given time in remote places. But the Save Our Seas Act is
    really also near and dear to my heart.
        Alaska, where I represent, has more coastline than all of
    the United States combined, and as a fisherman I have really
    seen firsthand how windblown trash has really changed the
    landscapes along rivers and lakes and, of course, the oceans.
    Our dumps are very different now, as well, than the dump sites
    that I grew up in. There are so many more appliances. There are
    so many more chemicals in some of the appliances, and printers,
    and things like that.
        A lot of Alaskans, to a person, are so conscientious about
    the single use plastic. Almost everybody I know, we cut the six
    pack--you know what I am talking about? The six pack holders?
    Yes, we cut every one of those, because we don't want turtles,
    or fish, or birds getting wrapped up in those and not being
    able to ever get out. And I see so often shorebirds, fish,
    marine mammals with single use plastic in their digestive
    system, and it is a cause for alarm. And I just really
    appreciate the effort that is now going into really
    concentrating on this terrible problem.
        And I wonder. A couple of weeks ago we had members of the
    Foundation board who visited the office, and I am very happy to
    see that the program is coming together, gelling after the
    COVID complications of coordinating. And I am wondering, Ms.
    Wallace, if your organization is closer to finding a
    headquarters, and I am very hopeful that you might consider
    having your headquarters in Alaska because of our tremendous
    coastline there.
        Ms. Wallace. Thank you for that question. And yes, we have
    had a long partnership with many groups in Alaska removing and
    preventing marine debris.
        The Foundation was stood up last year. We now have 12 board
    of directors, and the Foundation is an independent
    organization. So, we are really happy to have supported them to
    get to this stage. We will continue to support them.
        The location of the headquarters will be up to the Board of
    Directors and to the staff, but we will support the Foundation
    as we can.
        Mrs. Peltola. OK. And just as a follow-up, I think it is
    incumbent on every community, as many of us as we can, to be
    active participants in making sure that we are managing our
    windblown trash and things like that. I know in Alaska we have
    a program called Clean Up, Green Up.
        The organization I just worked for, we started a Clean Up,
    Freeze Up to do cleanup in advance of winter, before all that
    litter is frozen into place. And I just wonder, now in this
    role, what can I do? What can we collectively do to help you
    and your organization?
        Ms. Wallace. Thank you. We have appreciated all the support
    that we have gotten from Congress over the years.
        And I think in Alaska you have some great examples where we
    work on prevention campaigns to reduce the amount of litter
    that comes about, and those campaigns can happen all over the
    United States because, as you said, windblown trash is a real
    problem. And much of the debris that we see on our coastlines
    come from land-based sources like plastic bags, bottles, and
    cigarette butts. So, the more that we can do to raise awareness
    of the issue and have campaigns that really help change some of
    that behavior can have a big impact.
        Mrs. Peltola. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield
    back my time.
        Mrs. Boebert. Thank you. The Chair recognizes the
    gentlewoman from Wisconsin, Ms. Hageman--or, sorry, Wyoming.
    Excuse me, sorry.
        Ms. Hageman. That is all right. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Servheen, you were questioned about one of the factors
    under the Endangered Species Act, and that factor being whether
    a recovery plan has an adequate regulatory mechanism for a
    particular species. And I have been working on these issues for
    quite some time. I have never seen a recovery plan that does
    not include some kind of a backstop that would protect a
    recovered species, including constant monitoring, surveys,
    radio collaring, et cetera, et cetera, to ensure that if there
    is a particular species, whether it is the Canadian gray wolf,
    or the grizzly bear, or whatever it may be, once that
    management plan goes into effect--you are not trying to imply
    that there is absolutely no effort after that to determine what
    is going on with that species, are you?
        Dr. Servheen. No, I am not.
        Ms. Hageman. OK. So, typically with these recovery plans,
    and recovery plans that are at issue in this hearing right now,
    they actually have those kinds of mechanisms in place, don't
    they, where there is constant monitoring of the number of
    grizzly bears or the gray wolf population to ensure that those
    populations stay above the recovery threshold, don't they?
        Dr. Servheen. Well, the monitoring in and of itself does
    not assure that the animals stay above----
        Ms. Hageman. No, but they have those in place, and then
    there are tripwires that go into effect.
        So, for example, in Wyoming with the Canadian gray wolf, if
    the population goes down below a certain level, even if it is
    during the trophy game hunting season, there is an immediate
    stop to any further hunting. Are you aware of that?
        Dr. Servheen. Yes, I am.
        Ms. Hageman. OK. So, those are the kinds of things that are
    in place with these recovery plans to ensure that the numbers
    don't go below what is required, or what is agreed to in terms
    of the delisting. Is that right?
        Dr. Servheen. That is, in effect, the case. But that is not
    what my concern is.
        Ms. Hageman. No, but when you were questioned by Mr.
    Huffman about that being one of the factors, whether there was
    an adequate regulatory mechanism, part of the adequate
    regulatory mechanism is ensuring that those, whatever the
    species may be, doesn't decline below the recovered population.
    Correct? Isn't that the purpose of it?
        Dr. Servheen. That is correct.
        Ms. Hageman. Yes.
        Dr. Servheen. You have to know how many animals die in
    order to know----
        Ms. Hageman. But when we are talking about the numbers
    under the Endangered Species Act, we are concerned about the
    number of live animals, right?
        So, in Wyoming--I will use that as an example again--for
    the Canadian gray wolf that was introduced, a non-native
    species that was introduced into Wyoming in 1995, the original
    recovery goal was 100 animals for Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana.
    Were you aware of that? That was the original recovery goal.
        Dr. Servheen. Yes, I was aware of that.
        Ms. Hageman. Yes. So, eventually, when we started working
    on the recovery plans, then we got buffers in place. Then the
    recovery goal went to 150. Were you aware of that?
        Dr. Servheen. I am aware of that, yes.
        Ms. Hageman. OK. So, then we have buffers in addition,
    which is another part of the adequate regulatory mechanism to
    ensure that if your recovery goal is 100, we are not managing
    in Wyoming for 100 Canadian gray wolves, are we?
        Dr. Servheen. I don't believe so. My concern is not with
    Wyoming----
        Ms. Hageman. We are managing for much higher than that,
    aren't we? And the same with the grizzly bears. We will manage
    for a much higher population than the original 600 in terms of
    the recovery goal, right? Isn't that in the management plan?
        Dr. Servheen. That is in the management plan.
        Ms. Hageman. That is right. So, that is----
        Dr. Servheen. But my concern is not with Wyoming.
        Ms. Hageman. So, that would be considered an adequate
    regulatory mechanism, wouldn't it?
        Dr. Servheen. I am not sure that I can answer your
    question.
        Ms. Hageman. OK. So, for the Greater Yellowstone area, as
    long as we are managing above the recovery goals and our
    recovery plan requires that, that is exactly what the
    Endangered Species Act means by an ``adequate regulatory
    mechanism,'' isn't it?
        Dr. Servheen. You have to know how many animals die in
    order to manage----
        Ms. Hageman. Well, not necessarily, because you have to
    know how many are alive. We are managing for live animals,
    aren't we? Isn't the recovery goal 600, or 700, or 1,000? We
    are not managing for less than 500 dead. When you do a recovery
    plan, does it state in there that there can be no more than 500
    dead animals. That isn't what the Endangered Species Act says,
    is it?
        Dr. Servheen. Sustainable mortality requires you know how
    many animals die, as well as how many animals are out there.
        Ms. Hageman. But the recovery plan and whether we are
    meeting the requirements of the Endangered Species Act relates
    to live animals, correct?
        Dr. Servheen. It also relates to the number of mortalities.
        Ms. Hageman. That is what the biological opinion says. They
    give us the numbers of how many animals we need to have, how
    many Canadian gray wolves we need to have in Wyoming.
        Did you know in Wyoming, with a recovery goal of 100
    wolves, we have over 350 Canadian gray wolves in Wyoming?
        Dr. Servheen. I understand that is the case. I am not a
    wolf expert.
        Ms. Hageman. And in Idaho, in Montana, they have over 1,000
    Canadian gray wolves in each of those states. Were you aware of
    that?
        Dr. Servheen. They do at present, I understand.
        Ms. Hageman. Yes, thank you.
        Mrs. Boebert. The gentlewoman's time is expired. The Chair
    recognizes Mr. Beyer for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you for
    allowing me to waive on to the Committee for this hearing.
        I would like to just point out, too, that the reason that
    Canadian gray wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone is
    because they had killed all the native wolves. There were none
    left.
        I was impressed by Dr. Roberts' optimism that delisting
    wolves simply returns management authority and responsibility
    to the state, and that the agency is accountable to the people
    they serve, and that elected bodies that weighed into wolf
    management will be accountable to their respective electorates.
    That is awfully optimistic.
        Dr. Servheen, can you tell me what were the effects of
    delisting of wolves in the Northern Rockies? Specifically, how
    did the states respond?
        Dr. Servheen. Thank you for the question.
        Mr. Beyer. I am going to let you answer that question, too.
        Dr. Servheen. For many years, the states managed wolves
    after they were delisted in the Northern Rockies. For example,
    in Montana, they had a hunting season on wolves, and the wolf
    population stabilized and had been stable since about 2013. So,
    they had a sustainable harvest, and the wolves were doing very
    well.
        The problem that I was concerned with, and many others, is
    that in 2020, the legislature in Montana and also in Idaho
    started to put in place aggressive wolf-killing mechanisms that
    were excessive in terms of how many wolves they were trying to
    kill. For example, they allowed the killing of wolves right
    along the boundary of Yellowstone National Park, and this was
    just in the past couple of years. And almost 20 percent of the
    wolf population of the park was killed on that boundary hunt.
    They put in place the use of neck snares and bait and foothold
    traps throughout much of the wolf range to try to reduce the
    numbers of wolves. They allowed the hunting of wolves at night
    using spotlights and night vision devices over bait.
        All those things were a much more aggressive way to try to
    drive the population down than had existed for many years. They
    were managing wolves at a sustainable level until about 2020.
        Mr. Beyer. Let me just quote your testimony. It doesn't
    take a lot of imagination. The legislators and governors would
    try legislatively to minimize all these numbers inside recovery
    zones and eliminate them outside the recovery zones.
        We are currently waiting on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service to review the gray wolf status in the Lower 48. The
    original delisting took place in 2021. They won't have the
    updated proposal until February 2024.
        How have the wolf populations been affected as a result of
    this delay?
        Dr. Servheen. Well, I am not sure that we can say. That is
    a fairly recent time period. The activities of the states are
    ongoing. I don't know the exact population inventories of
    wolves today. That takes a while to make those estimates for
    wolf numbers.
        I know, as I said, that the trapping and hunting along the
    boundary of Yellowstone Park did significantly disrupt the
    social systems. They lost two packs in the park. Three other
    packs were disrupted, and that was something that occurred.
        As far as the numbers of wolves outside, I cannot say at
    this point, because I don't think they have up-to-date
    inventory data in the past year or so.
        Mr. Beyer. Yes, I just want to make the point that Idaho
    passed legislation to cull 90 percent of the gray wolf
    population by any means. And other states have promoted lethal
    control and wolf hunting, and are leaving it to state
    politicians to ignore science-based wildlife management. And
    now we are never going to get carnivore populations
    sustainable.
        In the minute we have left, can you talk about wolves self-
    regulating their population numbers?
        Dr. Servheen. Wolves do regulate their numbers. They are a
    social species in which packs defend against other packs.
    Animals that are dispersers have a low, low survival rate. They
    balance their numbers based on the prey available to them, and
    the space available as to how many packs can live on the
    environment. So, they do have regulatory mechanisms in place,
    and grizzly bears do, too. They have density-dependent
    regulation.
        So, at high densities of grizzly bears, the survival of
    young drops, and their populations begin to stabilize.
        Mr. Beyer. And Dr. Servheen, have you seen any of this
    legislation that is before us today that talks about kicking
    back in when you hit minimum levels, when you just delist by
    legislative fiat all those protections that were built into the
    original Endangered Species Act seem to go away.
        Dr. Servheen. They probably would go away, particularly if
    the actions are not subject to judicial review.
        And I want to clarify just in my last second here, is that
    the concern I have--the greatest threat of delisting grizzly
    bears today and to potentially relisting wolves is the actions
    of the state legislatures, particularly in Montana and Idaho.
        Mrs. Boebert. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair
    recognizes the gentleman from Montana, Mr. Rosendale, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Rosendale. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Johnson, again, thank you so much for traveling to be
    all the way out here with us. I think we both would rather be
    in Montana at this time of year, or any other time of year, for
    that matter.
        You touched on how grizzly bears affect your ranching
    operations. Could you tell me more about how your current
    management of grizzlies places limitations on how you use your
    land?
        Ms. Johnson. Well, I guess an example of that is, we were
    recruiting summer employees, and summer employees are going to
    have to go out into river bottoms and be able to fence and
    spray noxious weeds. We have a legal obligation to do those
    things, as ranchers, and it is dangerous. They will likely
    encounter a grizzly bear. They need to be prepared for that.
    And when you are recruiting employees and college students, and
    you are telling them, by the way, you need to be prepared to
    have an encounter with a large apex predator, it does make
    recruiting employees more difficult. That is one example.
        I outlined in my written testimony some of the other
    examples. We put up a bear enclosure around our yard that is a
    5-foot woven wire fence with an electric wire on the outside,
    and then an electric wire on the top, and then an electric wire
    on the bottom, on the outside. Just for perspective, just the
    fence charger, to power that, is about $1,000. And it should do
    about 120 miles of an electric fence. And it does about 12
    acres around our yard. So, it is also pretty darn zappy.
        Mr. Rosendale. Yes. And you said that you actually changed
    the type and varieties of livestock that you all were even
    raising because of the problems with the grizzly bears?
        Ms. Johnson. Yes. I mean, the reality is sheep are just not
    a viable option when you are in any sort of riparian area.
        Mr. Rosendale. Exactly, OK. Ms. Johnson, during your time
    serving on the Livestock Loss Board, you undoubtedly came
    across a lot of statistics on livestock loss and the cost
    associated. Can you tell us more about how those are
    calculated?
        Ms. Johnson. Yes, so those are calculated based on
    confirmed and suspected kills that are confirmed by U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Services. You have to have a carcass to be able to
    have that. So, if you think about, like, a calf, there might be
    something left. But a lamb, there is not going to be anything
    left. And sheep are much more susceptible to predation, in
    general.
        So, to be able to confirm those kills, you have to find the
    carcass, and then you have to get the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service to confirm that. And that also puts ranchers in a
    dangerous position because they are going out onto fresh kills
    to try to find whatever evidence they have left.
        I heard a story about somebody that now serves on the
    Livestock Loss Board and is a member of the Blackfeet Tribe,
    and he talked about going into the brush with his grandson to
    try to find whatever was left of the calf to be able to be
    compensated for it. And he said he found a piece of the skull
    cap that was about the size of a half dollar, and that was not
    enough to confirm the kill.
        Mr. Rosendale. So, is it fair to say that the reported
    numbers do not capture the full cost of grizzlies on livestock
    loss, or the total actual numbers of animals that are lost due
    to grizzlies?
        Ms. Johnson. Yes.
        Mr. Rosendale. OK. And when we start looking into these
    actual losses of livestock that are not covered by the
    Livestock Loss Board, or the additional investment that you
    make by putting the charger and the additional fence around
    your property just to protect your children and your personal
    property, or the actual loss of not being able to raise the
    type of livestock that you would want, does the Federal
    Government provide any kind of compensation because of this
    regulatory loss that you are experiencing?
        Ms. Johnson. There is grant funding available for some of
    the infrastructure to be able to protect your space and
    livestock. We did receive a grant for that, but that is it.
        Mr. Rosendale. OK. Ms. Johnson, in your testimony you
    touched on bears becoming increasingly comfortable with humans,
    or around more humans, and becoming more aggressive. Could you
    tell us more about how bears are becoming habituated to humans,
    and how the population has changed over time?
        Ms. Johnson. Yes. I mean, grizzly bears don't want to be in
    human spaces, generally speaking. They are wild animals. But
    when the population has met its threshold, and bears, like Mr.
    Servheen mentioned, the bear density is getting high in the
    areas that aren't as populated. Bears get pushed out. And bears
    are omnivores, so they benefit from being able to have access
    to things like grain fields, and nutrient-rich placentas, and
    calf feces out of calving pastures. And they take advantage of
    that.
        Mr. Rosendale. OK. I see my time is expired. Madam Chair, I
    would yield back. Thank you.
        Mrs. Boebert. The Chair recognizes Mr. Stauber for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. I was going to ask my
    good friend, Mr. Beyer from the northern part of Virginia, how
    many wolves he has in his district, but he has left. Thank you,
    Madam Chair, for allowing me to join you today. This is a
    crucial, important topic, and the bill is important to the
    constituents that I represent.
        Mr. Guertin, thank you so much for joining us here today.
    As you know, Minnesota, the district I represent, Minnesota's
    8th Congressional District, has a disproportionate share of the
    nation's gray wolves. Livestock payouts for our farmers are
    higher than they have ever been. Deer hunting between sky-high
    wolf numbers and recent punishing winters are scarcer and
    scarcer, the deeper you go into the wolf territory.
        During deer hunting season you can stand on the deck of my
    hunting shack at about 10 o'clock, start howling, and you will
    get the howling back. And guess how many deer we have shot in
    the last 10 years? Zero.
        [Chart.]
        Mr. Stauber. Please take a moment and look at the chart
    behind me from our Department of Natural Resources. The blue
    dotted line is the Federal recovery plan. Mr. Guertin, we are
    at 3,000 wolves in Minnesota. The recovery plan was about
    1,300. My constituents and I believe in trusting the science.
    That is why I joined my colleague, Representative Boebert's
    bill, Trust the Science Act, as an original co-sponsor.
        It is named Trust the Science Act because what the Northern
    District of California did by relisting the gray wolf was just
    the opposite.
        It is named Trust the Science Act because the Obama
    administration, they followed the science and delisted. But an
    activist judge reversed their scientific decision.
        What President Trump and Secretary Bernhardt did in 2020
    was, in fact, following the science, and this bill does just
    the same.
        So, I would like to ask you today, point blank, does the
    Biden administration intend to follow science and delist the
    gray wolf, yes or no?
        Mr. Guertin. Yes, we will follow the science, sir.
        Mr. Stauber. That is why we need to pass Representative
    Boebert's bill, because this Administration continues to cave
    to activist pressure over science time after time, not only in
    the mining in Minnesota, but the gray wolves in the great state
    of Minnesota.
        My constituents need the gray wolf to be delisted. We ask
    that this Administration follow the science. We need to be able
    to manage our species, protect our livestock, and support our
    deer hunting tradition in northern Minnesota.
        And I would like to enter into the record the Obama-era
    press release supporting delisting of the gray wolf.
        Mrs. Boebert. Without objection.

        [The information follows:]

                          U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

                                  NEWS RELEASE

    Service Proposes to Return Management and Protection of Gray Wolves to
       State Wildlife Professionals Following Successful Recovery Efforts

                                  June 7, 2013

                                     *****

         Mexican wolves in Southwest would continue to be protected as
                             endangered subspecies

    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today proposed to remove the gray
    wolf (Canis lupus) from the list of threatened and endangered species.
    The proposal comes after a comprehensive review confirmed its
    successful recovery following management actions undertaken by federal,
    state and local partners following the wolf's listing under the
    Endangered Species Act over three decades ago. The Service is also
    proposing to maintain protection and expand recovery efforts for the
    Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) in the Southwest, where it remains
    endangered.

    Under the proposal, state wildlife management agency professionals
    would resume responsibility for management and protection of gray
    wolves in states where wolves occur. The proposed rule is based on the
    best science available and incorporates new information about the gray
    wolf's current and historical distribution in the contiguous United
    States and Mexico. It focuses the protection on the Mexican wolf, the
    only remaining entity that warrants protection under the Act, by
    designating the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies.

    In the Western Great Lakes and Northern Rocky Mountains, the gray wolf
    has rebounded from the brink of extinction to exceed population targets
    by as much as 300 percent. Gray wolf populations in the Northern Rocky
    Mountain Distinct and Western Great Lakes Population Segments were
    removed from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in
    2011 and 2012.

    ``From the moment a species requires the protection of the Endangered
    Species Act, our goal is to work with our partners to address the
    threats it faces and ensure its recovery,'' said Service Director Dan
    Ashe. ``An exhaustive review of the latest scientific and taxonomic
    information shows that we have accomplished that goal with the gray
    wolf, allowing us to focus our work under the ESA on recovery of the
    Mexican wolf subspecies in the Southwest.''

    The Service will open a 90-day comment period on both proposals seeking
    additional scientific, commercial and technical information from the
    public and other interested parties. The comment period will commence
    upon publication of the proposed rules in the Federal Register.
    Relevant information received during this comment period will be
    reviewed and addressed in the Service's final determination on these
    proposals, which will be made in 2014. The Service must receive
    requests for public hearings, in writing, within 45 days of the
    publication in the Federal Register. Information on how to provide
    comments will be made available in the Federal Register notices and on
    the Service's wolf information page at www.fws.gov/
    graywolfrecovery062013.html.

    The Service's proposal is supported by governors and state wildlife
    agency leadership in each of the states with current wolf populations,
    as well as those that will assume responsibility for managing wolves
    dispersing into their states, such as Washington, Oregon, Colorado,
    Utah and North Dakota.

    ``With a solid state conservation and management plan in place for the
    Northern gray wolf, an experienced wildlife management agency that is
    committed to wolf recovery, and established populations recovering at
    an increasing rate, Oregon is ready to take on further responsibility
    for wolf management in this state,'' said Roy Elicker, Director of the
    Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. ``We know that there are
    questions that need to be resolved in moving toward a delisting of the
    Northern gray wolf under the federal ESA, and we believe the rulemaking
    process is an appropriate forum to address these issues. Oregon is
    supportive of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service publishing a proposed
    rule to begin this dialogue, and we look forward to participating in
    the scientific review process.''

    ``The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is firmly committed to
    the long-term persistence of wolves in Washington,'' said Miranda
    Wecker, Chair of the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission. ``The
    Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission believes the state should be
    responsible for the management of wolves and supports the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service's consideration of delisting gray wolves under the
    federal Endangered Species Act. By publishing the proposed rule, the
    Service ensures this important consideration can take place in an open
    and public process.''

    The Service's comprehensive review determined that the current listing
    for gray wolf, which was developed 35 years ago, erroneously included
    large geographical areas outside the species' historical range. In
    addition, the review found that the current gray wolf listing did not
    reasonably represent the range of the only remaining of the Mexican
    wolf population in the Southwest.

    Gray wolves were extirpated from most of the Lower 48 states by the
    middle of the 20th century, with the exception of northern Minnesota
    and Isle Royale in Michigan. Subsequently, wolves from Canada
    occasionally dispersed south and successfully began recolonizing
    northwest Montana in 1986. In 1995 and 1996, 66 wolves from
    southwestern Canada were reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park
    and central Idaho.

    In 2002 the Northern Rocky Mountain population exceeded the minimum
    recovery goals of 300 wolves for a third straight year, and they were
    successfully delisted in the Northern Rocky Mountains in 2012 and
    Western Great Lakes in 2011. Today, there are at least 6,100 gray
    wolves in the contiguous United States, with a current estimate of
    1,674 in the Northern Rocky Mountains and 4,432 in the Western Great
    Lakes.

    The number of Mexican wolves continues to increase within the Blue
    Range Wolf Recovery Area. During the 2012 annual year-end survey, the
    Mexican wolf Interagency Field Team counted a minimum of 75 Mexican
    wolves in the wild in Arizona and New Mexico, an increase over the 2011
    minimum population count of 58 wolves known to exist in the wild.

    In addition to listing the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies,
    the Service proposes to modify existing regulations governing the
    nonessential experimental population to allow captive raised wolves to
    be released throughout the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area in the Apache
    and Gila National Forests east central Arizona and west central New
    Mexico, and to disperse into the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population
    Area in the areas of Arizona and New Mexico located between I 40 and I
    10.

    Read what supporters of the Service proposal are saying at www.fws.gov/
    whatpeoplearesaying062013.html

    For more information on gray and Mexican wolves, including the proposed
    rules, visit www.fws.gov/graywolfrecovery062013.html.

                                     ______

        Mr. Stauber. And I would also say that Representative
    Young, rest his soul, stated that the Endangered Species Act,
    we should celebrate when these species get to the numbers that
    we need, so we can have Minnesota manage these wolves.
        I would submit to you, Mr. Guertin, that the Administration
    doesn't seem to follow the science, or they follow the science
    when it follows their ideology. And I can tell you, the gray
    wolves have increased in number to the point where we need the
    state to manage them. And I ask that the administration that
    you work for, I ask that you follow the science and delist the
    gray wolves because their numbers are up into that manageable
    area.
        And I yield back.
        Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Stauber. The Chair recognizes
    the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Tiffany.
        Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        First of all, behind me here shows when we had delisting
    about a decade ago--and I think we had three successful hunt
    seasons in Wisconsin, and then it was taken away at that time
    by a judge from out in Washington, DC. The coastal judges
    seemed to do us in each time.
        There were 26 very respected wildlife biologists that
    signed a letter that said, ``Delist. You should not do this,
    judge, because the wolf has recovered.'' And by the way, take a
    look at some of the names on that list, and go look at their
    political affiliation. Because I can tell you, they don't vote
    for me. They do not vote for me. But they do know that the wolf
    needs to be delisted.
        This may come across as humorous for some, Mr. Guertin, but
    it is actually a sincere question. Will this bill and hearing
    that we have introduced, will it trigger an ecogrief training
    for your agency?
        Mr. Guertin. No, sir. And we gave a briefing early in the
    hearing on the status of that ecogrief. Would you like me to
    give you an update on that, sir?
        Mr. Tiffany. So, something like this won't trigger another
    ecogrief hearing or training?
        Mr. Guertin. No, sir.
        Mr. Tiffany. OK. So, Dr. Roberts, you said, I think your
    quote was, it is no doubt that the wolf has recovered. Did you
    come to this conclusion simply through a formulaic way that
    just uses numbers, purely? Or do you come to this conclusion
    with things in addition to just numbers?
        Dr. Roberts. Thank you, Congressman Tiffany. It is a
    combination of numbers and the other criteria that Dr. Servheen
    mentions.
        So, there is no doubt that we have passed the thresholds
    for recovery. And I also believe that there are the state
    regulatory mechanisms that are in place, and competent
    authorities within those states to manage wolves.
        Mr. Tiffany. Can you name one or two of those things that
    go beyond numbers that you consider in coming to your
    conclusion?
        Dr. Roberts. Yes, sir. When states develop wolf management
    plans, and those wolf management plans set population
    objectives, and those objectives are clearly above the minimum
    threshold required for delisting, that gives me confidence,
    sir, that the states can manage these species.
        There is also sufficient science to guide that process. For
    example, Congressman Huffman had mentioned the concern about
    taking 30 percent of wolves in one season. And we know, through
    scientific published data, that you can take between 27 and 41
    percent of wolves, have a sustainable level of wolves, not even
    cause a population decline at that level. So, having published
    scientific data like that gives me much confidence, as well.
        Mr. Tiffany. Yes, thank you very much for that.
        You heard Wisconsin hunters trashed earlier by a person on
    this panel saying that they blew through the number of wolves
    that should be harvested just, I think it was two seasons ago.
    Understand that that was mischaracterized throughout the United
    States. I watched the media do a hit job on Wisconsin, and it
    has been spread all over the country that supposedly there was,
    like, 117 wolves that were identified in the wolf plan that
    could be taken, and there were over 200 that were taken. It was
    over double the number that should have been taken. That was
    incorrect.
        Our Natural Resources Board in Wisconsin authorized 200
    wolves to be taken 2 years ago. And I believe there were about
    220 that were identified by the Department of Natural Resources
    that were taken. It was only 10 percent over. In fact, the
    trigger the Department of Natural Resources put in place, I
    would say to you, worked when they only took 10 percent more.
    They shut it off when they knew that the number of wolves that
    were identified to be taken was about to be exceeded. They
    stopped the hunt right there. And I would say that it worked.
    And if you study the data, I think you will find that that is
    the case.
        The wolf is in the Hotel California, and that is the
    Endangered Species Act. You may enter, but you may never leave.
    And that is exactly what is happening. And as Mrs. Luna,
    Congresswoman Luna, identified earlier, we are misapplying
    funds now to a species that is recovered, rather than helping
    other species that could use that help at this point that may
    be threatened and endangered.
        It is really unfortunate that we have so much opposition to
    something that is so plain to see, that the wolf and the
    grizzly bear should be delisted.
        Thank you, and I yield back.
        Mrs. Boebert. The gentleman's time is expired, and I yield
    myself 5 minutes.
        Colorado is at the center of our nation for wolf battles.
    The objective of folks on the other side of the aisle is
    eliminating hunting, lock up our lands, further restrict gun
    rights, and pander to the interests of extreme
    environmentalists who don't understand our rural way of life.
        You see, while people of the Denver suburbs and the fake
    news believe all wolf attacks turn out like a fairy tale, and
    have continuously been shown cute little images of little pups,
    the reality is much different. And, typically, when these
    dangerous predators attack, they kill. And wolves don't just
    kill animals, they kill people, as well.
        From 2002 to present day, approximately 500 people have
    been attacked by wolves, with nearly 30 of these attacks
    resulting in human deaths. This week, I have received many
    letters and photos from families. And if you remember, as well,
    back in 2002, one of the wolf killings, it was a 9-year-old
    boy. He was critically injured in that count, and his friends
    were swimming near a forest. The 9-year-old boy could have died
    from this.
        But I have received many letters, many photos from families
    in Colorado who suffered through wolf attacks. These people
    deserve a voice as the fake news and wolf proponents often try
    to dismiss their stories and say they never even happened.
        [Slide.]
        Mrs. Boebert. The first two photos that I have are from
    Kathy Shoemaker in Jackson, Colorado, who had a calf attacked
    and killed. Sorry, where is that one--by two wolves.
        The next two photos are from Carlos Antocio in Walden,
    Colorado. He has a rescue dog here, Scooby Doo. Well, Scooby
    Doo, his cattle dog, and Buster were both killed by wolves.
    Scooby Doo had his stomach ripped out and wide open.
        The next six photos that I have are from Don Gittleson, a
    rancher in Walden, Colorado, who had a heifer and a dog killed
    by wolf attacks, as well as two breed cows seriously injured.
    These are wolves in Walden, Colorado causing this kind of harm,
    causing these deaths.
        I also have tragic wolf stories from Donna Sykes and Audrey
    McQueen of Colorado. This brutally describes tragic wolf
    attacks and how they occur.
        I also want to talk about the Federal Wolf Livestock Loss
    Demonstration Project program. I helped to lead the charge to
    secure millions of dollars at the Federal level and legislation
    signed into law to compensate ranchers for wolf depredations.
        In September of last year alone, Colorado Parks and
    Wildlife compensated livestock producers in Colorado for wolf
    attacks that killed five cows, two dogs, and one calf. In 2022,
    the Federal Government doled out $450,000 for wolf
    depredations.
        These last four photos that I have were sent from Johnny
    Schmidt, a ranch manager in Walden, Colorado. And these
    pictures are of a heifer and three calves that all died in
    Walden, Colorado in November as a result of wolf attacks.
        Without objection, I would like to submit these for the
    record.
        Without objection.
        A little different, being the Chair, asking myself.
        [Laughter.]
        Mrs. Boebert. Mr. Guertin, I was surprised to read that the
    Fish and Wildlife Services opposed my bill when career
    officials at your very agency wrote the same 2020 rules
    reissued by my bill, and when your agency is also defending
    this wolf delisting through litigation.
        I would point out to you that the Administrative Procedure
    Act limits courts from reviewing an agency's action if a
    statute like the Trust the Science Act precludes judicial
    review of such an action. So, Congress has the authority to do
    exactly what my bill does.
        My time is expired, and I yield.
        Mr. Huffman. Madam Chair, I would request unanimous consent
    to enter an article from wolf.org, which does a little deeper
    dive into some of the data you just cited, noting that, of the
    26 fatal wolf attacks around the world during that 20-year
    period, there was only one in the United States.
        Mrs. Boebert. Without objection.
        I want to thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony
    and the Members for their questions.
        The members of this Committee may have some additional
    questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to
    those in writing.
        Under Committee Rule 3, members of the Committee must
    submit questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5 p.m. on
    Tuesday, March 28. The hearing record will be open for 10
    business days for these responses.
        If there is no further business, without objection, the
    Subcommittee stands adjourned.

        [Whereupon, at 12:37 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

    Submissions for the Record by Rep. Huffman

                                                     March 17, 2023

        Dear Chairperson for the Committee on Natural Resources:

        I urge against the passage of H.R. 764, which would remove the gray
    wolf from the list of species protected by the Endangered Species Act
    of 1973 (ESA) and do so without the possibility of judicial review.
        Before highlighting the reasons to oppose H.R. 764, allow me to
    briefly describe my qualifications. I am a distinguished professor in
    the College of Forest Resources and Environmental Science at Michigan
    Technological University. My scholarly expertise is carnivore
    conservation--including the ecological and human dimensions of
    carnivore conservation and especially the conservation of wolves. I
    have been doing this work for three decades and have authored or co-
    authored more than 100 peer-reviewed articles on the aforementioned
    topics. My advice about carnivore conservation is regularly sought by
    agencies and institutions around the world, including having provided
    testimony before sub-committees of the U.S. Senate and House of
    Representatives.
        The immediate reason to oppose H.R. 764 is simple: gray wolves fit
    the definition of an ``endangered species,'' and any species fitting
    that definition is required to receive the full protections of the
    Endangered Species Act. There is no scientific basis for thinking that
    wolves occupy enough of their former range to be anything but an
    ``endangered species.'' This view has also only been supported by
    numerous court decisions.
        Furthermore, the citizens and government of the United States are
    more than readily able to recover wolves to the point of no longer
    requiring ESA protection. A broad look at the ecological research
    indicates that ample suitable--but currently unoccupied--habitat exists
    to properly recover wolves. A broad look at social science research
    clearly indicates that there is

         strong public support for properly recovering wolves,

         ample knowledge for the kinds of state regulation required
                to recover wolves, and

         readily achievable means for recovering wolves without any
                citizen bearing an undue burden.

        The broader reason to oppose H.R. 764 is: The biodiversity crisis
    is second only to climate change among environmental challenges facing
    the United States. The Endangered Species Act is this nation's primary
    tool for mitigating that crisis. When Congress weakens the ESA--as
    would assuredly occur with passage of H.R. 764--it undermines the
    United States' ability to mitigate the biodiversity crisis. Our
    citizens expect more, and our children will hold us accountable for
    such short-sightedness.
        While this letter is focused on the reasons to oppose H.R. 764,
    similar circumstances give reason to oppose H.R. 1245 and H.R. 1419,
    which aim to unduly remove ESA protections from two populations of
    grizzly bear.
        The view presented here is supported by the best-available science,
    the most important of which is found in the list of scientific papers
    whose citations are appended to this document.
        Please do not hesitate to call on me if I may be of further
    assistance by providing a more complete account of these claims or for
    other matters related to the Endangered Species Act and arresting the
    biodiversity crisis.

                Sincerely,

                                       John A. Vucetich, Ph.D.,
                                                Distinguished Professor

                                      ****

    Some of the Most Relevant Papers Giving Reason to Oppose H.R. 764

    Bruskotter, J.T., Vucetich, J.A., Slagle, K.M., et al. (2018). Support
    for the US Endangered Species Act over time and space: controversial
    species do not weaken public support for protective legislation.
    Conservation Letters, 11(6), e12595.

    Bruskotter, J.T., Vucetich, J.A., Enzler, S., et al. (2014). Removing
    protections for wolves and the future of the US Endangered Species Act
    (1973). Conservation Letters, 7(4), 401-407.

    van den Bosch, M., Beyer Jr, D.E., Erb, J.D., et al. (2022).
    Identifying potential gray wolf habitat and connectivity in the eastern
    USA. Biological Conservation, 273, 109708.

    Carroll, C., McRae, B.H., & Brookes, A. (2012). Use of linkage mapping
    and centrality analysis across habitat gradients to conserve
    connectivity of gray wolf populations in western North America.
    Conservation Biology, 26(1), 78-87.

    Offer-Westort, Tom, Adam Feltz, Jeremy T. Bruskotter, and John A.
    Vucetich. ``What is an endangered species?: judgments about acceptable
    risk.'' Environmental Research Letters 15, no. 1 (2020): 014010.

    Vucetich, J.A., Bruskotter, J.T., Arrivo, N., M. Phillips. 2023. A
    proposed policy for interpreting `significant portion of its range' for
    the U.S. Endangered Species Act, 1973. Georgetown Environmental Law
    Review, accepted for publication.

                                     ______

                    NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION

                                 Washington, DC

                                                     March 22, 2023

    Re: NPCA Position on Legislation before the House Committee on Natural
            Resources

        Dear Representative:

        Since 1919, National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) has been
    the leading voice of the American people in protecting and enhancing
    our National Park System. For 50 years, the Endangered Species Act
    (ESA) has been a critically important tool in the conservation and
    restoration of the over 600 threatened and endangered species that
    depend on habitats in national parks. Species like the California
    condor, the humpback whale, and the Santa Rosa Island fox have all
    benefited from the restoration and recovery support the ESA provides.
    On behalf of our 1.6 million members and supporters nationwide, we
    write to share our thoughts on select legislation ahead of a hearing
    held by the Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water,
    Wildlife and Fisheries scheduled for March 23, 2023.
        When an overwhelming bipartisan majority passed the ESA in 1973,
    Congress sought to ``provide a program for the conservation of . . .
    endangered species and threatened species'' and to ``provide a means
    whereby the ecosystems upon which [these] species depend may be
    conserved.'' 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531(b). To meet this objective, Congress
    set up a comprehensive system where the Secretary of the Interior would
    use the best scientific and commercial data available to conduct status
    reviews of species to determine which should be listed and protected.
    Today, the ESA provides an essential safety net to stop and then
    reverse the decline of scores of species throughout the country. For
    the ESA to continue to protect and restore impaired species, a species
    should only be delisted after a comprehensive status review, a public
    comment period and the chance for judicial review.

        H.R. 764--Trust the Science Act: NPCA opposes this legislation
    which would direct the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to remove
    endangered species protection for lower-48 gray wolves. Hunted,
    trapped, and poisoned, gray wolves existed in the lower-48 in a
    population of fewer than 1,000 by 1967 and were listed as endangered in
    1974. Gray wolves are just beginning to naturally re-inhabit national
    park ecosystems around the country. For the first time in decades, gray
    wolves have been seen in or near NPS-managed lands in Colorado, the
    Pacific Northwest, and Northern California. The return of wolves to
    these parks helps restore the natural predator-prey dynamics to
    ecosystems. With continued ESA protection, the gray wolf populations in
    these geographies will likely grow, and wolves may inhabit additional
    historic range in and around parks. H.R. 764 would threaten this
    recovery by applying a blanket delisting to gray wolf populations
    across the lower-48 states.
        Removing endangered species protection for lower-48 gray wolves as
    a single segment, ignoring the more nuanced status of species recovery
    across the states in question, would set back recovery efforts where
    appropriate available habitat exist in and around national parks. For
    decades, American taxpayers have invested heavily in the recovery of
    gray wolves in the lower-48 states. Federal and state agency wildlife
    professionals, land grant university researchers, and Tribal
    governments have come together to manage the opportunities and
    challenges of restoration of this often-vilified species. H.R. 764
    would cut short one of North America's great ongoing collaborative
    wildlife conservation success stories and undercut the core principles
    of the ESA.

        H.R. 1245--To direct the Secretary of the Interior to reissue a
    final rule relating to removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
    population of grizzly bears: NPCA opposes this legislation, which
    removes Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) grizzly bears, including
    the grizzlies of Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, from
    protection under the ESA. Grizzly bears were driven to the brink of
    extinction by eradication programs in the mid-19th century. The GYE
    population had dropped to as few as 136 bears when the species was
    listed as threatened under the ESA in 1975. Thanks to the resources and
    protections of the ESA, the hard work of state, Tribal and federal
    scientists, and the willingness of communities to adopt policies and
    practices to live with bears on the landscape, the population is on its
    way toward recovery. The USFWS is currently actively evaluating whether
    the latest science and policy support removing federal protection for
    the GYE population through a year-long public status review.
    Congressionally delisting this species would undermine the decades of
    hard work and resources that have gone into getting grizzly restoration
    to this point and would circumvent the current review of whether this
    population warrants removal from the protection of the ESA.
        The legislation would also circumvent the crucial role of the
    judicial system in the implementation of one of the nation's bedrock
    conservation laws. In 2017, USFWS removed ESA protections from the GYE
    grizzly bear population. The United States District Court for the
    District of Montana found that the final rule lacked critical analysis
    and failed to address several threats to the population's long-term
    survival. These findings were upheld by the United States Court of
    Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Courts outlined what USFWS must
    address before this population can be considered for removal from the
    endangered species list. None of those requirements are unsurmountable
    and USFWS should be given time to continue the process of addressing
    the Courts' concerns. The goal of the ESA is to recover a species and
    ensure that once delisted that recovery can be maintained. This
    population of bears is on the path to recovery but removing federal
    protections without an adequate plan in place to ensure the long-term
    health of this population is short sighted and will prevent the
    recovery of this icon of the American West.

        H.R. 1419--Comprehensive Grizzly Bear Management Act of 2023: NPCA
    opposes this legislation, which would remove ESA protection for the
    Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) population of grizzly
    bears, including bears of Glacier National Park. NCDE grizzlies were
    subject to the same eradication programs in the early 19th century as
    GYE grizzlies and were subject to an active hunting program into the
    1990s, even while listed. Through the dedication of local, state,
    tribal and federal governments, and partnerships with businesses and
    NGO's, grizzlies in the NCDE have begun to recover. The NCDE population
    is also undergoing a year-long public status review, similar to the GYE
    population. This will allow USFWS to actively evaluate whether science
    and existing or in-process management policies support removing federal
    protection for the NCDE population.
        H.R. 1419 would undercut and sidestep the rigorous review that a
    science and policy-based evaluation of listing status requires under
    current law. Normally, a delisting proposal would include a complete
    rulemaking process with agreements on post-delisting management between
    states, tribes and federal agencies, long-term monitoring, and robust
    public engagement. Congressionally delisting this species would
    undermine the decades of hard work and resources that have gone into
    getting grizzly restoration in the NCDE to this point and would
    circumvent the current review of whether this population warrants
    removal from the protection of the ESA.

        Thank you for considering our views.

                Sincerely,

                                              Christina Hazard,
                                                   Legislative Director

                                     ______

                                                     March 22, 2023

    Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
    Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member
    House Natural Resources Committee
    1324 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

    Re: Opposition to Legislation Removing Endangered Species Act
            Protections for the Gray Wolf and Grizzly Bear

        Dear Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Grijalva:

        On behalf of over 85 organizations and our millions of members and
    supporters, we write to express our strong opposition to H.R. 764, H.R.
    1245, and H.R. 1419, which undermine the Endangered Species Act and
    legislatively strip protections for the gray wolf and grizzly bear, two
    of our nation's most iconic keystone species. If passed, these bills
    will cause irreparable harm by undoing decades of progress to stabilize
    and recover these apex carnivores.

        A decade ago, Congress took the unprecedented action of removing
    federal protections for wolves in Idaho and Montana. Since then, wolves
    have been subject to non-scientific and ever-crueler persecution in
    those states. Idaho hires private contractors to kill wolves, lets
    hunters and trappers kill an unlimited number of wolves, permits year-
    round trapping on private land, and allows wolves to be chased down
    with all-terrain vehicles. In Montana, hunters can now use night-vision
    scopes and spotlights on private land, strangulation snares on public
    and private land, and bait to lure wolves across the state. It has also
    extended the wolf-trapping season by four weeks.

        H.R. 764, the so-called ``Trust the Science Act'' introduced by
    Representative Boebert (R-Colo.), would legislatively delist gray
    wolves in the lower-48 states, except for a small population of Mexican
    gray wolves in Arizona and New Mexico. This misguided legislation would
    reinstate an October 2020 decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service to delist the wolf, despite a federal court invaliding the
    decision and the concerns of independent scientists that wolves remain
    functionally extinct in the vast majority of their former range across
    the United States.

        In 2020, Colorado voters approved a ballot initiative directing the
    state to reintroduce wolves. Unfortunately, the lack of federal
    protections in Wyoming resulted in the death of three members of
    Colorado's North Park pack, which was the very first wolf pack in the
    state in over 100 years. It is beyond ironic that Rep. Boebert is
    working to undermine the will of Colorado voters to bring back wolves
    to the state, a process that is more likely to succeed if wolves retain
    federal protections under the Endangered Species Act.

        Similarly, H.R. 1245 and H.R. 1419 would remove Endangered Species
    Act protections for grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
    population and Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem, respectively.
    Removing federal protections for these grizzly populations will pave
    the way for trophy hunting and subject bears to ever-increasing levels
    of persecution by extreme state legislatures that have shown no
    restraint with respect to wolves. For example, after federal
    protections were briefly removed in 2017, Wyoming and Idaho immediately
    announced grizzly hunts that would have allowed for up to 23 bears to
    be killed outside of Yellowstone National Park.

        In 2018, a Montana federal court blocked those proposed hunts and
    ruled that the Trump administration had prematurely and illegally
    stripped protections for Yellowstone grizzlies. As the court explained:

            By delisting the Greater Yellowstone grizzly without analyzing
            how delisting would affect the remaining members of the lower-
            48 grizzly designation, the Service failed to consider how
            reduced protections in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem would
            impact the other grizzly populations.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Crow Indian Tribe v. United States, 343 F. Supp. 3d 999 (D.
    Montana 2018).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        By failing to address how removing protections for grizzlies in
    Yellowstone would affect the recovery of grizzly bears in neighboring
    ecosystems, such as in northern Idaho where just a few dozen grizzlies
    struggle to survive and in the Selway-Bitterroot area of central Idaho
    where just a few grizzly bears might live, the Service had violated the
    Endangered Species Act's mandate to recover endangered species. Despite
    having recovery plans to recover grizzly bears in these regions, the
    Service has not acted on them, and if the grizzly bears in Yellowstone
    lose protections it will decrease the likelihood of bears recovering
    elsewhere in violation of the law.

        The 2018 ruling, later affirmed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
    and reinforced by a separate decision on wolves in the D.C. Circuit,\2\
    confirmed the fragmented, piecemeal approach to recovery fails to meet
    the goal of the Endangered Species Act to recover species across
    significant portions of their range. The court aptly explained:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Crow Indian Tribe v. United States, No. 18-36030 at 41 (9th
    Cir. 2020) (requiring the Service to ``determine . . . whether there is
    a sufficiently distinct and protectable remnant population, so that the
    delisting of the [distinct population segment] will not further
    threaten the existence of the remnant,'' and that the lack of
    ``concrete, enforceable mechanisms'' to ``ensure long-term genetic
    health of the Yellowstone grizzly,'' and that a ``commitment to
    increase population size'' is ``required to ensure long-term
    viability.''

            When a species is already listed, the Service cannot review a
            single segment with blinders on, ignoring the continuing status
            of the species' remnant. The statute requires a comprehensive
            review of the entire listed species and its continuing status.
            Having started the process, the Service cannot call it quits
            upon finding a single distinct population segment.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Id. (quoting Humane Soc'y of the U.S. v. Zinke, 865 F.3d 585,
    601 (D.C. Cir. 2017)).

        If Congress prematurely removes protections for grizzly bears and
    wolves and prohibits any type of judicial review of these delistings,
    it will severely undermine the recovery of wolves in places like
    Colorado and the West coast, and grizzly bears in the North Cascades,
    Idaho and elsewhere. And as we have seen with wolves, once federal
    protections are irrevocably removed, state governments that are hostile
    to these iconic species will ratchet up their persecution with no
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    regard for science or functioning, healthy ecosystems.

        For these reasons, we urge you to oppose H.R. 764, H.R. 1245, and
    H.R. 1419.

                Sincerely,

            Center for Biological
            Diversity                     Montanans for Gallatin Wilderness

            Alliance for the Wild
            Rockies                       National Wolfwatcher Coalition

            Animal Welfare Institute      NH Animal Rights League

            Animal Wellness Action        North Central Washington Audubon
                                          Society

            Animal Wellness Foundation    NY4WHALES

            Apex Protection Project       Oceanic Preservation Society

            Attorneys for Animals, Inc.   Oregon Wild

            Born Free USA                 Panthera

            Buffalo Field Campaign        Piping Plover Project

            Center for a Humane Economy   Predator Defense

            Christian Council of
            Delmarva                      Project Coyote

            Coastal Plains Institute      PROTECT OUR WOODS
            ColoradoWild                  Protect Our Woods

            Confident Puppy               Public Interest Coalition

            Conservation Congress         Resource Renewal Institute

            Conservation Law Foundation   Rocky Mountain Wild

            Eco-Integrity Alliance        Save Animals Facing Extinction

            Endangered Habitats League    Save Our Sky Blue Waters

            Endangered Species
            Coalition                     Sequoia ForestKeeper

            Environmental Center of San
            Diego                         Shagbark

            EPIC-Environmental
            Protection Information
            Center                        Sierra Club

            Flathead-Lolo-Bitterroot
            Citizen Task Force            Speak for Wolves

            Flying Popcorn Ranch          Swan View Coalition, Inc.

            FOUR PAWS USA                 The 06 Legacy

            Friends of Merrymeeting Bay   The Cougar Fund

            Friends of the Bitterroot     The Humane Society of the United
                                          States

            Friends of the Clearwater     The Rewilding Institute

            Friends of the Earth          The Urban Wildlands Group

            Friends of the Wild Swan      Trap Free Montana

            Gallatin Wildlife
            Association                   Trap Free Montana Public Lands

            Glacier-Two Medicine
            Alliance                      Trevor Zoo

            Great Old Broads for
            Wilderness                    Voice for Animals

            Great Old Broads for
            Wilderness, Tucson
            Broadband                     Voices of Wildlife in NH

            Great Old Broads for
            Wilderness, Bozeman
            Broadband                     Washington Wildlife First

            Heartwood                     WaterWatch of Oregon

            Howling For Wolves            Western Watersheds Project

            Humane Action Pittsburgh      Western Wildlife Outreach

            Humane Society Legislative
            Fund                          Wild in the Swan

            Inland Empire Lands Council   WildEarth Guardians

            International Fund for
            Animal Welfare (IFAW)         Wilderness Watch
            International Marine Mammal
            Project of Earth Island
            Institute                     Wolf Conservation Center

            John Muir Project             Wolf Hollow

            League of Conservation
            Voters                        Wyoming Wildlife Advocates

            Living With Wildlife
            Foundation                    Yaak Valley Forest Council

            Montana Wilderness
            Education School

                                     [all]