[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]