[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 [email protected].

            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]