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


                        H.R. 4389, ``MIGRATORY BIRDS OF THE 
                        AMERICAS CONSERVATION ENHANCE-.
                          MENTS ACT OF 2023''; H.R. 4770,.
                      ``CHESAPEAKE BAY SCIENCE, EDUCATION, 
                         AND ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT ACT OF.
                         2023''; AND H.R. 5009, ``WILDLIFE INNO-.
                              VATION AND LONGEVITY DRIVER.
                        REAUTHORIZATION ACT'' OR ``WILD ACT''

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

                          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

                               __________

                      Wednesday, October 18, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-69

                               __________

       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                    
53-813 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------           

                     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 Wednesday, October 18, 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........................................     2

    Panel I:

    Sarbanes, Hon. John P., a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Maryland..........................................     3

Statement of Witnesses:

    Panel II:

    Robinson, Carrie Selberg, Director of the Office of Habitat 
      Conservation, National Marine Fisheries Service, 
      Washington, DC.............................................     5
        Prepared statement of....................................     7
    Guertin, Stephen, Deputy Director for Program Management and 
      Policy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.....     8
        Prepared statement of....................................    10
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    12
    Cassidy, Ben, Executive Vice President of International, 
      Government and Public Affairs, Safari Club International, 
      Washington, DC.............................................    13
        Prepared statement of....................................    14
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    21
    Wraithmell, Julie, Vice President and Executive Director, 
      Audubon Florida, Miami, Florida............................    26
        Prepared statement of....................................    28
    Colden, Allison, Maryland Executive Director, Chesapeake Bay 
      Foundation, Annapolis, Maryland............................    31
        Prepared statement of....................................    33
    Caccese, Robert T., Director of Policy, Planning, and 
      Communications, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, 
      Harrisburg, Pennsylvania...................................    37
        Prepared statement of....................................    39



 
 LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 4389, TO AMEND THE NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY 
 BIRD CONSERVATION ACT TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO THAT ACT, AND FOR OTHER 
 PURPOSES, ``MIGRATORY BIRDS OF THE AMERICAS CONSERVATION ENHANCEMENTS 
 ACT OF 2023''; H.R. 4770, TO REAUTHORIZE THE CHESAPEAKE BAY OFFICE OF 
  THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, AND FOR OTHER 
     PURPOSES, ``CHESAPEAKE BAY SCIENCE, EDUCATION, AND ECOSYSTEM 
   ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2023''; AND H.R. 5009, TO REAUTHORIZE WILDLIFE 
 HABITAT AND CONSERVATION PROGRAMS, AND FOR OTHERPURPOSES, ``WILDLIFE 
 INNOVATION AND LONGEVITY DRIVER REAUTHORIZATION ACT'' or ``WILD ACT''

                              ----------                              


                      Wednesday, October 18, 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 10:01 a.m., in 
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Cliff Bentz 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Bentz, Wittman, Radewagen, 
LaMalfa; Huffman, Peltola, Hoyle, Dingell, and Porter.
    Also present: Representatives Sarbanes.

    Mr. Bentz. The Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and 
Fisheries will come to order.
    Good morning, everyone. I want to welcome Members, 
witnesses, 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 Member. 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 Committee Rule 3(o).
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I also ask unanimous consent the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. 
Joyce, and the gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Salazar, be 
allowed to participate in today's hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    We are here today to consider three legislative measures: 
H.R. 4389, the Migratory Birds of the Americas Conservation 
Enhancements Act of 2023, sponsored by Representative Salazar 
of Florida; H.R. 4770, the Chesapeake Bay Science, Education, 
and Ecosystem Enhancement Act of 2023, sponsored by 
Representative Sarbanes of Maryland; and H.R. 5009, the WILD 
Act, sponsored by Representative Joyce of Ohio.
    I now recognize myself for an opening statement.

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

    Mr. Bentz. As everyone should be aware, votes have been 
scheduled for 11 a.m. this morning. In the interest of hearing 
from our witnesses, I will keep the statement short.
    We are here today because one of our responsibilities as 
members of the Committee on Natural Resources is to 
periodically evaluate the authorities this Committee grants to 
Federal agencies under its jurisdiction. Today, we are 
evaluating three bipartisan bills that would reauthorize 
programs within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    I look forward to hearing from the witnesses regarding the 
importance of these programs and why they merit 
reauthorization.
    With that, I thank the Members for their work on these 
bills and the witnesses for testifying today.
    I now recognize Ranking Member Huffman for his opening 
statement.

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

    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, 
everyone. I am happy to be here discussing important 
conservation legislation, and I am grateful to each of our 
witnesses for making the trip to Washington, DC.
    Today, we will be discussing three bipartisan pieces of 
legislation. Who says there is no bipartisan path forward and 
this place has to be mired in chaos? Look at this Subcommittee 
today. All of these bills focus on the conservation and 
protection of unique animals and ecosystems.
    We will hear testimony on H.R. 4770, the Chesapeake Bay 
Science, Education, and Ecosystem Enhancement Act of 2023, led 
by our friend, Representative Sarbanes. Chesapeake Bay is an 
important estuary, the largest in the United States, home to 18 
million Americans and a diverse array of fish and wildlife that 
have suffered from pollution, overfishing, and coastal 
development. This bill authorizes the NOAA Chesapeake Bay 
Office to help study and restore this essential part of our 
landscape.
    It also authorizes funds for the competitive Bay Watershed 
Education and Training Grants. These grants help to fund 
educational experiences that teach students about the 
Chesapeake Bay and develop skills needed to protect it. I look 
forward to hearing from our witness, Dr. Allison Colden, the 
Maryland Executive Director of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 
on this important bill.
    We will also discuss H.R. 5009, the WILD Act. This bill 
would reauthorize and amend several wildlife conservation acts, 
making it easier to support long-term conservation work for 
iconic species like elephants, rhinoceroses, tigers, great 
apes, and marine turtles.
    The bill also reauthorizes the Partners for Fish and 
Wildlife Program, which supports habitat restoration efforts 
across the United States and our territories. The Partners for 
Fish and Wildlife Program within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service employs biologists who work with private landowners to 
help them conserve and improve wildlife habitat. It is an 
important program, a component of the collaborative 
conservation effort for endangered and threatened species that 
we often talk about in this Committee.
    And then finally, we will hear some testimony on H.R. 4389, 
the Migratory Birds of the Americas Conservation Enhancements 
Act of 2023. This bill amends the Neotropical Migratory Bird 
Conservation Act to modestly increase the Federal cost share of 
each supported project, making grants more accessible to 
applicants. Projects supported through this Act support nearly 
200 species of neotropical migratory birds, and have already 
benefited 5 million acres of migratory bird habitat in over 40 
countries.
    Neotropical migratory birds migrate vast distances, 
spending winter in the tropics and summering in the United 
States and Canada. This bill will ensure that these species 
continue to benefit from habitat conservation across their 
expansive migratory routes for years to come.
    Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent that our colleague, Mr. 
Sarbanes, join us on the Democratic side and have permission to 
sit at the dais and participate in today's hearing.
    Mr. Bentz. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Huffman. I appreciate that and yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Ranking Member Huffman. I will now 
introduce our first panel. As is typical with legislative 
hearings, the bills' sponsors are recognized for 5 minutes each 
to discuss their bills.
    With us today is Congressman John Sarbanes, who is 
recognized for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN P. SARBANES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                CONGRESS FROM THE STATE MARYLAND

    Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you very much, Chairman Bentz, Ranking 
Member Huffman, members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity 
to testify today in support of H.R. 4770, the bipartisan 
Chesapeake Bay Science, Education, and Ecosystem Enhancement 
Act of 2023, or SEEE Act.
    This bill takes important steps to support the ongoing 
restoration of the Chesapeake Bay by reauthorizing NOAA's 
Chesapeake Bay Office and authorizing the agency's long-running 
Bay Watershed Education and Training, or B-WET Grant program.
    For Marylanders, the Chesapeake Bay is the cornerstone of 
both our heritage and our economy. My Virginian co-leads on 
this bill, Representatives Jen Kiggans, Rob Wittman, and Bobby 
Scott, who also represent districts directly on the Bay, know 
from their own experiences how this national treasure has 
shaped our country's history, and even today serves as the 
economic engine that powers our region's seafood, tourism, and 
recreation industries.
    Beyond Maryland and Virginia, the Chesapeake Bay watershed 
spans Delaware, the District of Columbia, New York, 
Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, intertwining the lives of more 
than 18 million people with the nation's largest estuary.
    Unfortunately, in recent decades, the health of the 
Chesapeake Bay and the prosperity of the communities who rely 
on it has been negatively affected by nutrient runoff across 
the watershed, disappearing coastal and marine habitat, and 
many other factors. That makes the passage of the Chesapeake 
Bay SEEE Act all the more important.
    NOAA's Chesapeake Bay Office coordinates and conducts 
scientific research, habitat restoration efforts, and 
environmental education projects across the watershed to 
improve the Bay's health and ensure its sustainable use for 
generations to come. The Chesapeake Bay SEEE Act would bolster 
NOAA's critical coastal research stewardship work in several 
ways I will mention very briefly.
    First, the bill would reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Office 
for the first time since 2006. Though Congress has annually 
appropriated funds for the Bay Office's operations, it can be 
challenging for the office to most effectively act as the hub 
of all NOAA's Bay-related programs and activities amid this 
uncertainty. By reauthorizing the office, we can best position 
it to efficiently carry out its mission of using science, 
service, and stewardship to restore and protect the Bay.
    Second, the bill would enhance the Chesapeake Bay 
Interpretive Buoy System, which collects real-time 
meteorological, oceanographic, and water quality information, 
and wirelessly relays this weather and environmental data to 
inform researchers, boaters, educators, and the public.
    Third, the bill would statutorily authorize the B-WET Grant 
program and centralize its administration within the Bay 
Office. This will build on the well-established success of the 
B-WET program, which for more than 20 years has helped inspire 
the next generation of scientific leaders by providing K-12 
students in the Chesapeake Bay watershed invaluable, hands-on 
education about how their everyday actions affect the Bay.
    Fourth and finally, the bill would expand NOAA's 
Aquaculture Technical Assistance programs, which play a vital 
role in restoring the Chesapeake's living resources, from 
oysters to the iconic blue crab. Beyond protecting the Bay's 
habitat, these programs also provide indispensable support for 
our seafood industry and the tens of thousands of jobs it 
provides.
    The health of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed can only 
continue to improve through robust Federal, state, and local 
partnerships. Ensuring that NOAA's Chesapeake Bay Office is 
equipped to best carry out its part in these efforts is 
essential to a successful, long-term restoration and protection 
of this national treasure.
    Last Congress, the SEEE Act advanced out of this Committee 
by voice vote, and I hope that today's hearing is the first 
step in continuing that legacy of strong bipartisan support for 
the Chesapeake Bay in this Congress.
    Again, thank you very, very much, Mr. Chairman, for the 
opportunity to present today.
    I yield back. Thank you very much.

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Congressman Sarbanes, for your 
testimony.
    I ask unanimous consent that the statements from 
Congresswoman Salazar and Congressman Joyce be entered into the 
hearing record.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I will now introduce our second panel.
    Ms. Carrie Selberg Robinson, Director of the Office of 
Habitat Conservation with the National Marine Fisheries Service 
in Silver Spring, Maryland; Mr. Stephen Guertin, Deputy 
Director for Policy at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 
Washington, DC; Mr. Ben Cassidy, Executive Vice President of 
International, Government and Public Affairs with the Safari 
Club International in Washington, DC; Ms. Julie Wraithmell, 
Executive Director of Audubon Florida in Tallahassee, Florida; 
Dr. Allison Colden, Maryland Executive Director with the 
Chesapeake Bay Foundation in Annapolis, Maryland; and Mr. 
Robert Caccese, Director of Policy, Planning, and 
Communications with the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission 
in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
    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 the hearing record.
    To begin your testimony, please press the ``on'' 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 I 
will ask you to complete your statement.
    I will also allow all witnesses to testify before Member 
questioning.
    I now recognize Ms. Carrie Selberg Robinson for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF CARRIE SELBERG ROBINSON, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF 
   HABITAT CONSERVATION, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, 
                         WASHINGTON, DC

    Ms. Robinson. Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and 
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify before you today and to discuss H.R. 4770, Chesapeake 
Bay Science, Education, and Ecosystem Enhancement Act of 2023, 
and H.R. 5009, Wildlife Innovation and Longevity Driver 
reauthorization Act, or the WILD Act.
    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, 
is responsible for the stewardship of the nation's living 
marine resources and their habitat. NOAA Fisheries provide 
vital services for the nation: sustainable and productive 
fisheries, safe sources of seafood, the recovery and 
conservation of protected species, and healthy ecosystems, all 
backed by sound science and an ecosystem-based approach to 
management.
    The resilience of our marine ecosystems and coastal 
communities depends on healthy marine species, including 
protected species such as whales, sea turtles, salmon, and 
corals.
    H.R. 4770 would reauthorize the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office, 
update our legislative authority, and provide additional 
direction and flexibility. We would like to thank Rep. Sarbanes 
for introducing this important piece of bipartisan legislation 
along with the bill's three co-sponsors who represent the 
Chesapeake Bay watershed jurisdictions of Maryland and 
Virginia.
    The NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office, NCBO, is a division of the 
Office of Habitat Conservation within the NOAA National Marine 
Fisheries Service. NCBO uses its capabilities in science, 
restoration, and community engagement to improve the 
understanding, management, and stewardship of the Chesapeake 
Bay. NCBO focuses on sustainable fisheries and habitat science, 
oyster restoration, oceanographic and meteorological 
observations, environmental literacy, and community 
partnerships. As a part of this overall effort, NCBO is working 
with partners to support the restoration of oyster populations 
in 10 Bay tributaries by 2025, which has already resulted in 
the largest oyster reef restoration project in the world.
    NCBO also funds fisheries research that provides real-world 
applications that support Federal and state marine resource 
managers.
    NCBO also monitors Bay conditions by maintaining the 
Chesapeake Bay Interpretive Buoy System. This network of buoys, 
acoustic receivers, and water column sensors tracks water 
quality, fish movement, and weather information at key 
locations, and delivers this data to our colleagues engaged in 
ecological forecasting, as well as to boaters, recreational 
anglers, and other researchers.
    In support of the environmental literacy goal of the 
Watershed Agreement, NCBO partners with states and school 
districts throughout the region to increase K-12 environmental 
literacy programs throughout the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 
Education and Training Competitive Grant program, also known as 
B-WET.
    This legislation would empower NCBO with the tools and 
capabilities to directly support the conservation and 
restoration goals of NOAA, the Chesapeake Bay program, and our 
partnerships in the Bay, and we appreciate the Committee's 
attention to this program.
    Regarding H.R. 5009, the WILD Act, NOAA works with the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service to implement the Marine Turtle 
Conservation Act, which supports international sea turtle 
conservation and recovery. NOAA Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service identify high-priority projects and provide 
financial and technical assistance.
    In closing, NOAA stands ready to work with all of you to 
address the current and future challenges to our marine 
ecosystems. Thank you, and I look forward to discussing these 
bills with you today.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Robinson follows:]
   Prepared Statement of National Marine Fisheries Service, National 
  Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
                       on H.R. 4770 and H.R. 5009

    Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today 
and to discuss H.R. 4770, ``Chesapeake Bay Science, Education, and 
Ecosystem Enhancement Act of 2023,'' and H.R. 5009, ``Wildlife 
Innovation and Longevity Driver reauthorization Act'' or the ``WILD 
Act.''
    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is 
responsible for the stewardship of the nation's living marine resources 
and their habitat. NOAA Fisheries provide vital services for the 
nation: sustainable and productive fisheries, safe sources of seafood, 
the recovery and conservation of protected species, and healthy 
ecosystems--all backed by sound science and an ecosystem-based approach 
to management. The resilience of our marine ecosystems and coastal 
communities depends on healthy marine species, including protected 
species such as whales, sea turtles, salmon, and corals.
    H.R. 4770 would reauthorize the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office, update 
our legislative authority, and provide additional direction and 
flexibility. We would like to thank Rep. Sarbanes for introducing this 
important piece of bipartisan legislation along with the bill's three 
co-sponsors who represent the Chesapeake Bay watershed jurisdictions of 
Maryland and Virginia.
NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office

    The NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office (NCBO) is a division of the Office 
of Habitat Conservation within the NOAA National Marine Fisheries 
Service. NCBO uses its capabilities in science, restoration, and 
community engagement to improve the understanding, management, and 
stewardship of the Chesapeake Bay. NCBO focuses on sustainable 
fisheries and habitat science, oyster restoration, oceanographic and 
meteorological observations, environmental literacy, and community 
partnerships.
    NOAA has been a partner in the Chesapeake Bay Program since 1984. 
In 2014, NOAA and its Federal and state partners committed to the 
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, which included goals supporting the 
restoration and protection of the Bay watershed and guiding the work of 
the Chesapeake Bay Program.
    NCBO is the Federal agency lead working to implement the Watershed 
Agreement objectives for oysters, blue crabs, forage species, and fish 
habitat. As part of this effort, NCBO is working with partners to 
support the restoration of oyster populations in 10 Bay tributaries by 
2025--the largest oyster reef restoration project in the world. NCBO 
funds important fisheries research that provides real-world 
applications that support Federal and state marine resource managers.
    NCBO is also committed to place-based initiatives to improve 
fisheries habitat and coastal community resilience in the Choptank 
River Habitat Focus Area in Maryland and the Middle Peninsula of 
Virginia.
    NCBO monitors Bay conditions by maintaining the Chesapeake Bay 
Interpretive Buoy System. This network of buoys, acoustic receivers, 
and water column sensors tracks water quality, fish movement, and 
weather information at key locations and delivers this data to NOAA 
colleagues engaged in marine weather and ecological forecasting, as 
well as to boaters, recreational anglers, and other researchers.
    In support of the Environmental Literacy Goal of the Watershed 
Agreement, NCBO partners with states and school districts throughout 
the region to increase systemic and sustainable implementation of K-12 
environmental literacy programs through the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 
Education and Training (B-WET) competitive grant program.
    Climate change is a critical issue facing the Chesapeake Bay and 
its watershed. Climate considerations are embedded into all NCBO does--
from observations and fisheries research to education, workforce 
development, and community engagement programs. NCBO coordinates the 
Chesapeake Bay Program's climate and resilience activities, including 
supporting the development of green infrastructure in underserved 
communities.
    Finally, NCBO is strongly committed to increasing diversity, 
equity, inclusion, and justice both in our office culture and in our 
programs. We do this by actively seeking engagement of underserved 
communities in our place-based initiatives, supporting internship 
programs focused on students from populations historically excluded 
from science fields, and ensuring our grant funding supports the 
priorities of diverse communities and is accessible to them.
H.R. 4770--Chesapeake Science, Education, and Ecosystem Enhancement Act

    NOAA supports the objectives of H.R. 4770, which would reauthorize 
the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office and update its legislative authority.
    The bill would recognize and provide authority for long-standing 
NCBO programs and activities, including two programs not included in 
the 2002 reauthorization act--the Chesapeake Bay Interpretive Buoy 
System and the Chesapeake B-WET Program. The Chesapeake Bay Coastal 
Living Resources Management and Habitat Program will also allow for 
development of programs that restore, protect, and build the resilience 
of critical coastal habitats and vulnerable communities to offset the 
effects of climate change.
    This legislation would authorize NCBO with the tools and 
capabilities to directly support the conservation and restoration goals 
of NOAA, the Chesapeake Bay Program, and the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 
Agreement.
H.R. 5009 (Rep. Joyce of Ohio), ``Wildlife Innovation and Longevity 
        Driver reauthorization Act'' or the ``WILD Act''

    The Marine Turtle Conservation Act supports international sea 
turtle conservation and recovery. Through the Marine Turtle 
Conservation Fund, USFWS provides financial and technical assistance to 
international partners to reduce terrestrial and marine threats to sea 
turtles and to better assess and understand their population status. 
NOAA Fisheries coordinates with USFWS to identify high priority 
projects and provide financial and technical assistance.
Conclusion

    NOAA is proud to continue to be a leader in conducting ocean 
science, serving the nation's coastal communities and industries, and 
ensuring responsible stewardship of our ocean and coastal resources. We 
value the opportunity to continue working with this Subcommittee on 
these important issues. Thank you, Members of the Subcommittee and your 
staff for your work to support NOAA's mission. I am happy to take your 
questions.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
    I now recognize Mr. Guertin for 5 minutes.

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

    Mr. Guertin. Good morning, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member 
Huffman, and members of the Subcommittee. I am Steve Guertin, 
Deputy Director for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We 
appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on two 
bills that reauthorize three successful programs that invest in 
partnerships to conserve wildlife at home and abroad.
    H.R. 4389, the Migratory Birds of the Americas Conservation 
Enhancements Act, would reauthorize the Neotropical Migratory 
Bird Conservation Act, or Neotrops Act. The Service supports 
H.R. 4389 with a few recommended modifications.
    Since the early 1900s, the United States has undertaken 
substantial actions and investments to conserve migratory 
birds, but these investments are at risk if the migrating birds 
do not have suitable habitat to support their life cycles 
outside of the United States. Congress enacted the Neotrops Act 
to protect these investments we make here in the United States.
    Through the Neotrops Act the Service works to conserve 390 
species of neotropical birds that migrate to the United States 
each year from other countries. These birds pollinate plants, 
control pests, and generate billions of dollars of economic 
activity through bird watching and photography. Since 2002, the 
Neotrops Act has conserved or restored more than 5 million 
acres of bird habitat and leveraged an additional $346 million 
in partner funding.
    While we support and welcome the changes this bill would 
make, the Service recommends decreasing the cost share 
requirement even further to a one-to-one match. This would open 
doors to a broader coalition of applicants and partners.
    The Service also supports increasing the cap on 
administrative expenses to address anticipated growth in demand 
for the program, and we note that demand for the program has 
outstripped funding in recent years.
    H.R. 5009, the WILD Act, reauthorizes two popular, long-
standing Service programs that promote species and habitat 
conservation: the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and 
the Multinational Species Conservation Fund.
    The Service supports H.R. 5009.
    Through the Partners Program we advance collaborative 
conservation on private lands. Our biologists work with 
landowners on a voluntary basis to help them conserve and 
improve wildlife habitat on their lands. Conservation on 
private lands is critically important to accomplish our 
mission, because nearly 70 percent of the land in the United 
States is privately owned.
    Over the past 35 years, the Partners Program has helped 
around 30,000 landowners to conserve more than 6.4 million 
acres of fish and wildlife habitat. A 2014 study found that 
every dollar the program contributed to a project generated 
nearly $16 in economic returns to local communities. The 
program is flexible, effective, and provides lasting benefits 
for wildlife and communities across the country.
    We have seen similar successes through the Multinational 
Species Conservation Fund, which conserves some of the world's 
most iconic species, including sea turtles, great apes, 
elephants, rhinos, and tigers. Conserving these species is a 
specific directive from Congress to the Service. From 2015 to 
2022, the funds provided over $90 million in grants and 
cooperative agreements, and leveraged nearly $200 million in 
additional funds toward conserving these species. U.S. dollars 
invested in the range countries go a long way. Projects 
supported by the funds mitigate threats to these species, 
conserve ecosystems, advance diplomacy, improve stability in 
foreign countries, and build goodwill toward the United States.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. We 
appreciate the Subcommittee's interest in our conservation 
partnerships. Working with others is central to our mission, 
and reauthorization of these programs will enable us to 
continue to advance our conservation mission at home and 
abroad.
    I would be pleased to answer any questions the Committee 
has.

    [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. 4389 and H.R. 5009

Introduction

    Good morning, 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 two bills that reauthorize three long-standing and 
successful programs that invest in partnerships to conserve wildlife at 
home and abroad.
    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 carry out this mission. The programs reauthorized in the 
legislation before the Subcommittee today are pivotal to these 
conservation partnerships.
    The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (NMBCA) has created 
durable and effective partnerships with other nations to conserve a 
shared resource. Each year, 390 species of neotropical migratory birds 
migrate to and from the United States, spending winters in southern 
countries and returning to North America in the summer. These birds 
include beloved and familiar species such as the Baltimore oriole, the 
Golden-cheeked warbler, and the American oystercatcher along with 
broader groups of songbirds, shorebirds and birds of prey. In addition 
to their role in pollination, seed dispersal and pest control, 
migrating birds also provide warnings of the effects of climate change 
and environmental contamination and generate billions of dollars of 
economic activity through bird watching and photography. A key aspect 
of this law is that it ensures that conservation activities undertaken 
in the U.S. are bolstered by habitat conservation outside of the U.S. 
in key areas of the species' ranges. It also leverages about four times 
the funds invested and has provided critical support for neotropical 
bird conservation and research throughout the Western Hemisphere for 
over two decades.
    The Partners for Fish and Wildlife (PFW) Program has long been a 
critical tool in helping the Service advance collaborative conservation 
on private lands. With more than 70 percent of land in the U.S. in 
private ownership, the success of the Service's conservation mission 
hinges on its ability to work with partners to conserve and restore 
fish and wildlife habitat on private lands. Established in 1987, the 
PFW Program facilitates conservation with private landowners to benefit 
both trust species and landowners. Through over 200 PFW biologists 
located in all 50 states and territories, the Service provides free 
technical and financial assistance to private landowners, managers, 
tribes, corporations, schools, and nonprofits interested in improving 
wildlife habitat on their land. Projects are custom designed to meet 
the unique needs of each partner and can range from several-acre 
wetland restorations to grassland restoration projects that stretch 
thousands of acres.
    Similarly, the Multinational Species Conservation Funds have been 
essential to conserving some of the world's most iconic species, as 
identified by Congress, through partnerships in their range countries. 
Poaching, wildlife trafficking, human-wildlife conflict, habitat loss, 
and disease have all contributed to the decline of these species, which 
include elephants, rhinoceros, tigers, great apes, and marine turtles. 
Key populations of many of these species are found in countries where 
these threats are compounded by political instability, expanding human 
populations, and a lack of funding and capacity for conservation. 
Projects supported by the Multinational Species Conservation Funds 
mitigate threats to these species, conserve ecosystems, advance 
diplomacy, improve stability in foreign countries, and build good will 
towards the United States.
H.R. 4389, Migratory Birds of the Americas Conservation Enhancements 
        Act of 2023

    H.R. 4389, the Migratory Birds of the Americas Conservation 
Enhancements Act of 2023 would reauthorize the NMBCA through fiscal 
year (FY) 2028. The bill would increase the federal share of each 
project to a maximum of 33.3 percent; require the Service to submit a 
report to Congress within 180 days of enactment describing the 
implementation of existing collaborative requirements in the Act; 
increase the allowable administrative expenses available to the 
Secretary each fiscal year to a maximum of 4 percent or $200,000, 
whichever is greater; and increase the authorization of appropriations. 
The Service supports H.R. 4389, with some recommendations for 
improvement, which would continue the legacy of effective 
international, collaborative conservation and provide increasing 
financial support for, and thereby public access to, bird conservation.
    The Service's Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation program 
provides grants for the conservation of neotropical migratory birds to 
countries in Latin America, the Caribbean, Canada, and the United 
States. The program operates an annual grant cycle where Service staff 
and outside experts review eligible project proposals and makes 
recommendations to the Director. Since 2002, NMBCA has provided more 
than $89 million to support 717 projects in 43 countries. These 
projects have positively affected more than 5 million acres of bird 
habitat and leveraged an additional $346 million in partner funding. 
This May, the Service awarded $5.1 million in federal funds, leveraging 
more than $19.6 million in partner contributions, for 32 projects 
across 30 countries. The networks developed through this program have 
evolved into a powerful conservation tool.
    Increasing the federal cost-share requirement to 33 percent from 
the current 25 percent will open doors to a broader coalition of 
applicants and partners. However, the Service notes that if the federal 
share were increased to a maximum of 50 percent, a 1:1 match, it would 
enable the Service to engage an even larger number of partners, take on 
a greater partnership role with projects, and reduce risk to the 
program if partners are unable to raise a higher match level.
    Similarly, while the Service appreciates support for increasing 
allowable administrative expenses, we recommend increasing the amount 
permitted under the legislation to up to 5 percent or $300,000, 
whichever is greater. If the federal cost share increases, increased 
administrative funding will be critical to handle the additional 
workload associated with an expected increase in applicants and grant 
recipients. Additionally, increasing the maximum amount to the 
recommended level would enable Service employees to ensure better 
compliance with federal financial assistance requirements that improve 
performance and conservation delivery.
    Finally, the Service is requesting $9.9 million for this program in 
the President's FY 2024 budget. In recent years, proposals for funding 
have totaled close to $10 million annually. Authorizing appropriations 
at the Service's requested level would allow the program to meet 
increasing demand from applicants and improve outcomes for birds that 
are facing threats from climate change, habitat degradation, and other 
challenges that require long-term education, research and monitoring.
    For these reasons, we would welcome the opportunity to work with 
the sponsor and the Subcommittee to ensure the NMBCA can continue its 
legacy of collaborative conservation and meet the demand from 
applicants and partners across the Hemisphere.
H.R. 5009, Wildlife Innovation and Longevity Driver Reauthorization Act

    H.R. 5009, the Wildlife Innovation and Longevity Driver 
Reauthorization (WILD) Act reauthorizes two popular, long-standing 
Service programs that promote species and habitat conservation: the PFW 
Program and the Multinational Species Conservation Funds. The Service 
supports H.R. 5009, which would enable the Service to continue 
leveraging some of our most successful collaborative conservation 
efforts at home and abroad.
    Over the past 35 years, the PFW Program has been highly successful 
in helping the Service and its partners meet shared conservation goals, 
helping around 30,000 landowners complete more than 50,000 habitat 
restoration projects totaling more than 6.4 million acres of fish and 
wildlife habitat. A 2014 study found that for every $1 the PFW Program 
contributed to a project, the program generated $15.70 in economic 
returns to local communities. Whether the program is restoring coastal 
marshes in Ottawa County, Ohio, or working with the partners to restore 
a park in Bay City, Michigan, it proves to be a flexible and effective 
program that provides lasting benefits to wildlife and communities.
    The Multinational Species Conservation Funds are authorized through 
five laws that created individual competitive grant programs supporting 
the conservation of international at-risk species. These programs 
provide critical technical and financial assistance to local 
communities, government agencies, and non-government organizations, 
working to conserve at-risk species and habitat across the globe. From 
2015 to 2022, the Funds provided $92.5 million in grants and 
cooperative agreements and leveraged nearly $200 million in additional 
funds towards conserving these species. Since their inception, the 
Funds have engaged nearly 600 domestic and foreign partners in over 54 
countries.

    Each of the five Funds are applied to unique species conservation 
challenges abroad:

    The African Elephant Conservation Fund provides critical support 
for curbing the current African Elephant poaching epidemic, combatting 
the trafficking of this species' ivory and meat, and reducing the 
demand for these products. The Asian Elephant Conservation Fund 
specializes in enhancing human-Asian Elephant co-existence through 
local stewardship and community outreach in addition to promoting 
applied research and transboundary conservation efforts. The Rhinoceros 
and Tiger Conservation Fund is aimed at community engagement in both 
South Africa and South Asia, and includes a suite of measures, such as 
wildlife trafficking mitigation measures that seek to eliminate to 
collection and sale of rhinoceros horns as well as tiger pelts, teeth, 
bones, and products, and establishing networks of citizens to protect 
tigers through reduced human-wildlife conflict. The Great Ape 
Conservation Fund seeks to preserve some of our world's most 
intelligent animals by combatting pet-trade related capture and 
poaching throughout Africa and Asia. Lastly, the Marine Turtle 
Conservation Fund addresses threats to turtle survival through nesting 
site protection, marine debris reduction, fishery bycatch reduction, 
and other localized conservation projects. The program was also 
expanded by Congress in 2019 to include support for the conservation of 
freshwater turtles and tortoises.
    H.R. 5009, Wildlife Innovation and Longevity Driver Reauthorization 
Act, reauthorizes funding for the PFW Program through FY 2028; 
reauthorizes funding for the Multinational Species Conservation Funds 
at existing funding levels through FY 2028; and authorizes multiyear 
grants for up to five years for the Multinational Species Conservation 
Funds programs.

    The Service has identified some suggested modifications, which are 
discussed below.

    Reauthorization of the PFW program would enable the Service to 
continue to achieve strong conservation outcomes through hand-in-hand 
collaboration with private landowners. However, the Service notes that 
the Administration's FY 2024 budget request includes almost $80 million 
for the PFW Program--nearly $5 million more than would be authorized by 
H.R. 5009. This proposed increase underscores the need for 
collaborative efforts to enhance private lands, protect trust species, 
and support ecosystem and community resiliency and the program's 
capability to address that need. The Service would welcome the 
opportunity to discuss with the Subcommittee how the PFW Program is 
equipped to deploy the additional funding included in our budget 
request, including how we anticipate an increase in funding could 
amplify the program's achievements and benefits to landowners and 
neighboring communities.
    With regard to the Multinational Species Conservation Funds 
programs, we note that the current caps on administrative funds are not 
consistent across the five programs, nor are they sufficient to cover 
total administrative costs associated with implementing and overseeing 
the Funds. The Service would welcome the opportunity to discuss this 
further with the sponsor and the Subcommittee.
Conclusion

    The Service appreciates the Subcommittee's interest in our 
conservation partnerships. Working with others is central to the 
Service's mission, and reauthorization of the Neotropical Migratory 
Bird Conservation Act, Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, and 
Multinational Species Conservation Funds will enable the Service to 
continue our work with our partners to conserve species at home and 
abroad.

                                 ______
                                 

   Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Stephen Guertin, Deputy 
               Director for Policy, U.S. Fish & Wildlife

Mr. Guertin did not submit responses to the Committee by the 
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

              Questions Submitted by Representative Bentz

    Question 1. Why is the Service is not utilizing the Partners for 
Fish and Wildlife Program more to reduce or eliminate the need for 
listing rather than putting more money towards Ecological Service 
budget and personnel? Oftentimes the work of the ecological services 
department would be duplicative of the work that could be done by the 
partners program before a species is listed.

                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
    I now recognize Mr. Cassidy for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF BEN CASSIDY, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF 
   INTERNATIONAL, GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, SAFARI CLUB 
                 INTERNATIONAL, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Cassidy. Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, 
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for your invitation 
today to discuss H.R. 5009, Wildlife Innovation and Longevity 
Driver Reauthorization Act, or the WILD Act. I am here as a 
representative of Safari Club International, or SCI, an 
organization that has long prioritized conservation efforts 
here in the USA, as well as across the globe.
    Our organization's work on the ground in Africa, 
facilitated by the best available wildlife science, leads to 
the inescapable conclusion that the future of the continent's 
wildlife depends on the extraordinary power of community-driven 
conservation. When we say community-driven conservation, we 
mean that the African communities and the African people have 
not only the inalienable right, but also the knowledge of how 
to best protect the wildlife species whose habitats are within 
their borders and, indeed, in their backyards.
    That is why SCI supports the WILD Act, as it represents the 
largest U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service allocation of funds 
toward community-driven conservation projects in southern and 
eastern Africa, including but not limited to, range states such 
as Zimbabwe, Zambia, Angola, Namibia, and Botswana, which make 
up the Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area, or 
KAZA.
    KAZA, which is home to 55 percent of the world's elephants 
and 20 percent of African lions, recently used WILD Act grant 
funding to help complete a monumental elephant survey covering 
106 million acres, that is the size of France, which showed 
stable and increasing elephant populations across the region. 
The reason for this success? The incorporation of sustainable 
use strategies, often more plainly referred to as legal 
regulated hunting.
    Southern African wildlife officials and African wildlife 
scientists agree that the incorporation of legal and regulated 
hunting is an essential component of larger conservation 
strategies, scientifically proven to save wildlife habitat from 
human development, bolster economic opportunities for rural 
African communities, and combat the criminal and unregulated 
killing of wildlife, also known as poaching.
    Congressional reauthorization of the WILD Act should 
further fund and acknowledge these countries' proven 
conservation strategies, especially with respect to not only 
African elephants, but also Asian elephants, rhinoceros, 
tigers, and turtles.
    All of this points to one glaring truth: it is easy for us 
to mandate policies and pontificate about protecting elephants 
from thousands of miles away, but look at what successes we can 
bring about when we incorporate, instead of reject, the 
expertise of the people who co-exist with these animal 
populations.
    Unfortunately, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service currently 
administers the WILD Act in a way that all too often hinders 
community-based conservation. The process of receiving WILD Act 
conservation funds has become too tangled and dominated by 
large NGOs, who can afford to retain the staff necessary to 
navigate the overly complicated legal maze required to petition 
for funding. The WILD Act must more easily facilitate the 
allocation of resources for community-based conservation, not 
bury African applicants under American paperwork, bureaucracy, 
and red tape.
    Secondly, the unfortunate truth is that communities and 
officials in southern African countries see the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service as divorced from their reality on the ground, 
and therefore not a good faith partner. And who can blame them? 
On one hand, Fish and Wildlife is giving grants that promote 
sustainable use projects like the KAZA survey. Then, on the 
other hand, Fish and Wildlife Service is rejecting sustainable 
use proposals at international conferences like the Convention 
on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 
Flora, also known as CITES. When the leadership of Fish and 
Wildlife Service speaks out of both sides of its mouth, African 
stakeholders do not see a reliable ally.
    Lastly, the WILD Act's implementation scheme represents a 
significant diversion of assets from countries and communities 
whose population management strategies represent the most 
substantial and effective form of conservation. Many WILD Act 
grant beneficiaries reject the benefits of legal, regulated 
hunting and use WILD Act funds as a crutch to fund programs 
that might otherwise be successfully paid for by hunting 
revenue in range states. Why are we subsidizing a choice to be 
less efficient and less strategic?
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife can find more effective ways to 
communicate with and listen to southern African countries to 
address their wildlife conservation needs. This must be an 
approach hunters and anti-hunters alike can agree on.
    SCI remains very supportive of the WILD Act, but we suggest 
that Congress use its oversight function to ensure that 
community-based conservation funds reach the African 
communities that need it most, rather than the coffers of 
multi-national NGOs. Such reforms to the application process 
would ensure the WILD Act fulfills its true mission of funding 
effective conservation.
    Thanks for your time, and I welcome any and all questions 
from the Committee.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Cassidy follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Benjamin Cassidy, Executive Vice President of 
International, Government and Public Affairs, Safari Club International
                              on H.R. 5009

    Good morning, Chairman Bentz, Raking Member Huffman, Representative 
Joyce, Representative Dingell, and members of the House Committee on 
Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries. Thank 
you for the opportunity to testify today about how commonsense, 
community-centered conservation is critical for the meaningful 
protection of the world's most iconic species. I am Benjamin Cassidy, 
Executive Vice President of International, Government and Public 
Affairs for Safari Club International (``SCI''). SCI is a nonprofit 
I.R.C. Sec. 501(c)(4) corporation with approximately 85,000 members and 
advocates worldwide. SCI is the only hunting rights organization with a 
Washington, D.C. based national and international advocacy team and an 
all-species focus. SCI's missions include conservation of wildlife, 
protection of the hunter, and education of the public concerning 
hunting and its use as a conservation tool. The conservation programs 
of SCI's sister organization Safari Club International Foundation 
(``SCIF''), support research, wildlife management, conservation 
projects, and rural community leadership in North America, Africa, and 
Central Asia.
    SCI's global conservation efforts, specifically those in Africa, 
prioritize community-driven conservation. What we see time and again is 
that these communities are relentless advocates for the incorporation 
of legal, regulated hunting as a component of their larger, 
multifaceted conservation strategies. It is no surprise that the 
countries that conserve 80% of the world's African elephants, nearly 
70% of black rhinos, and approximately 90% of all white rhinos allow 
lawful hunting.\1\ The same can be said for populations of lion, 
leopard, giraffe, wild dog, cheetah, and many more. Specifically, this 
legal regulated hunting offers benefits that include, but are not 
limited to, preserving wildlife habitat and combatting poaching through 
reducing human-wildlife conflict and providing economic opportunities 
to communities, thereby disincentivizing poaching or other wildlife 
crimes. Let us not forget that the two largest threats to wildlife 
species are habitat loss and poaching.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ C.R. Thouless et al., African Elephant Status Report 2016 
(``Elephant Status Report''), https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/
library/files/documents/SSC-OP-060_D.pdf (reporting over 339,000 of the 
total 415,000 African elephants are estimated to inhabit the seven 
countries where they are hunted); African and Asia Rhinoceroses--
Status, Conservation and Trade (2022), CITES CoP19 Doc. 75 Annex 4, 
Report prepared by the IUCN Species Survival Commission and TRAFFIC 
(reporting 68% of Africa's black rhinos and 89% of Africa's white 
rhinos inhabit Namibia and South Africa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The WILD Act represents the largest pool of money from the 
Department of the Interior that is directed towards community-driven 
conservation projects in African range states. The WILD Act would 
reauthorize the Multinational Species Conservation Fund (``MSCF'') 
which supports global conservation of imperiled species, including 
rhinos, elephants, tigers, great apes, and turtles. The grants target 
species and address habitat conservation, law enforcement, and 
technical assistance for conserving species under the MSCF. SCI 
supports H.R. 5009 and its grant programs but believes that the process 
for putting funds into conservation has become too tangled and 
dominated by large international non-governmental organizations 
(``NGOs''). SCI suggests that the grant process be reformed to fulfill 
the MSCF's mission of putting resources into conservation, rather than 
being consumed by paperwork and bureaucracy.
The WILD Act Reauthorizes Critical Funding for Elephants, Rhinos, and 
        Other Wildlife

    The WILD Act would reauthorize MSCF funding used to promote 
conservation of certain species. For African elephant, the WILD Act 
would reauthorize the African Elephant Conservation Act (``AECA'') for 
fiscal years 2024 through 2028 at $5 million per fiscal year. The AECA 
grants the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (``Service'') the authority 
to establish the African Elephant Conservation Fund (``AECF'') to 
provide funding for projects that benefit African elephants through 
research, conservation, and management of the species and its habitat. 
Projects are carried out in cooperation with African range states and 
NGOs.
    As a recent example of the importance of this funding, the AECF 
provided grant monies for the first ever synchronized aerial elephant 
survey for the entire Kavango Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area 
(``KAZA''). Established in 2011 and covering 106 million acres across 
parts of Angola, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia, and Zimbabwe, KAZA is the 
world's largest transboundary conservation landscape. In September 
2023, KAZA announced the results of its 2022 elephant survey.\2\ The 
much-anticipated results from the first-of-its-kind survey show exactly 
what hunters, outfitters, and southern African governments have known 
all along: elephants are stable or increasing throughout the region and 
in particular in countries where they are part of a sustainable use 
conservation hunting program. The estimated elephant population for the 
region was calculated at 227,900.\3\ This represents an increase from 
the IUCN's 2016 African Elephant Status Report, which estimated a 
combined 216,970 elephants in the KAZA region. Across KAZA, 58% of 
elephants were found in Botswana, 29% in Zimbabwe, 9% in Namibia, and 
the remaining 4% were found in Zambia and Angola combined.\4\ These 
kinds of surveys and resulting data are critical for the implementation 
of both domestic and international elephant management policies that 
drive effective elephant conservation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ KAZA Launches its 2022 KAZA Elephant Survey results (2023), 
https://www.kavangozambezi.org/2023/08/31/kaza-launches-its-2022-kaza-
elephant-survey-results/.
    \3\ Bussiere, E.M.S. and Potgieter, D., An Aerial Survey of 
Elephants and Other Large Herbivores in the Kavango Zambezi 
Transfrontier Conservation Area Volume I: Results and Technical Report 
(2023).
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reauthorization of the MSCF via the WILD Act will provide important 
conservation funding administered through the AECA and other relevant 
Acts. However, from SCI's perspective, Congress should encourage the 
Service to structure the relevant grant programs such that local and 
community conservation programs are the end beneficiaries, rather than 
funneling grant funds through large, international NGOs.
Implementation of the MSCF Needs to Change

    Despite the well-meaning intent of the MSCF and Congress's 
reauthorization of these funds, the implementation process for 
administering the grants, and the Service's general approach to 
awarding conservation efforts in Africa, should be improved. 
Regrettably, many stakeholders and conservation partners in southern 
Africa view many of the Service's actions related to African 
charismatic mega-fauna as divorced from their reality on the ground. 
Rather than recognizing the conservation successes of southern Africa--
related in particular to elephants, rhinos, and other popular species--
the Service's actions routinely hinder development of robust 
conservation programs in the region. Elephant management in Botswana is 
a great example.
    After a five-year closure, Botswana reopened hunting in 2020 
because of increased human-wildlife conflict and the failure of 
photographic tourism to successfully accommodate for the livelihoods of 
rural Botswanans. Botswana has an estimated 130,000 elephants with an 
estimated carrying capacity of 50,000 elephants. Upon lifting the 
moratorium, the Director of Wildlife and National Parks, Kabelo 
Senyatso stated, ``Botswana has an estimated 130,000 elephants and the 
population is growing, not declining . . . we lifted the hunting 
moratorium on elephant in order to generate sustainable income for our 
communities, not to control the elephant numbers.'' \5\ Hunting 
generated income has become necessary to compensate communities who 
live near and among large and destructive wildlife, like elephants. And 
the results of the KAZA elephant survey, explained above, indicate that 
elephant populations in the region are stable and increasing, with 
Botswana having the most elephants of any country in the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ IUCN Says Support for Proven Elephant Management is Critical to 
Species' Conservation in New Red List Assessment (2021) (``IUCN Red 
List Assessment''), https://safariclub.org/iucn-says-support-for-
proven-elephant-management-is-critical-to-species-conservation-in-new-
red-list-assessment/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite the need to mitigate human-wildlife conflict and the 
benefits of clearly sustainable hunting, the Service's rules and 
regulations related to African elephant promulgated and implemented 
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act have diminished the positive 
impacts that conservation hunting can have in Botswana. By putting up 
regulatory barriers, in particular related to the importation of sport-
hunted elephants, the Service continues to reduce the funding that 
might otherwise be available to mitigate significant human-wildlife 
conflict and supplement overstretched government resources.
    Notwithstanding the Service's general recognition that sustainable 
use hunting programs drive conservation and benefit local communities 
throughout the region (and elsewhere around the world), the Service 
routinely makes it unnecessarily more difficult for range states to 
implement robust sustainable use programs by restricting or prohibiting 
the importation of sport-hunted wildlife, voting against beneficial 
sustainable use trade in fora like the Convention on International 
Trade in Endangered Species (``CITES''), and awarding conservation 
grants to programs that oppose sustainable use conservation. This must 
change.
    Regulated hunting generates significant benefits with low 
environmental impact. The seven countries where elephants are hunted 
and exported to the U.S. sustain over 81% of the global elephant 
population. The four countries which export 90% of all elephant 
trophies conserve over 60% of the world's elephant. Normally, when a 
community has achieved some impressive metric--a school with high test 
scores, a town with high incomes--we admire this success and try to 
replicate it. Instead, the Service routinely grants MSCF funds to 
countries and programs with no hunting in an attempt to manufacture 
positive conservation outcomes in otherwise failing programs.
    Dr. Chris Comer, Director of Conservation for SCIF, and an 
experienced wildlife biologist, stated:

        There are two kinds of elephants; those that are struggling due 
        to unmitigated poaching and dwindling habitat; and those where 
        government and landholders have set aside wild areas, 
        implemented programs to incentivize communities to protect 
        elephant, and invested in efforts to counter the commercial 
        poaching rings that decimate elephant populations. 
        Overwhelmingly, the elephants that are doing well are located 
        in Southern African countries, particularly [Southern African 
        Development Community] countries, where elephant management 
        includes both non-consumptive and consumptive use of the 
        species.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ IUCN Red List Assessment.

    The Department of the Interior must find better, more effective 
ways to promote sustainable use conservation, recognize successful 
programs, and meet the needs of programs that produce benefits to 
wildlife and habitat. WILD Act grant monies should be sent to the 
countries and communities with demonstrable successes in order to 
continue and enhance those successes and encourage others to do the 
same. SCI encourages these grant funds be utilized as an incentive to 
reward positive outcomes, rather than continuing to prop up programs 
with limited benefits.
    In particular, many community-based conservation programs could use 
additional funds to preserve critical habitat and allocate resources 
toward anti-poaching efforts. As co-sponsor Congressman Joyce said, 
``[c]ommonsense, community-centered conservation helps restore habitats 
and endangered wildlife, lifts up economies, and makes communities more 
secure.'' \7\ MSCF grants should focus on providing communities with 
the funds necessary to disincentivize poaching, reduce the competition 
for habitat, and provide additional livelihood opportunities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Joyce, Dingell Introduce Legislation to Protect Wildlife and 
Conservation Programs (2023), https://joyce.house.gov/posts/joyce-
dingell-introduce-legislation-to-protect-wildlife-and-conservation-
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-Poaching Efforts
    Currently, hunting raises most of the revenue needed for anti-
poaching efforts. Hunting raises substantial revenue from concession 
leases, trophy fees, conservation fees, taxes, and other charges levied 
by national and local governments and landholders. Prior to trophy 
import restrictions imposed by the U.S. and other western countries, 
elephant hunting was the highest or among the highest sources of 
hunting revenue.\8\ A large percentage of this revenue is used for law 
enforcement and anti-poaching by national wildlife authorities.\9\ For 
example, in Zimbabwe in 2014, hunting revenue funded one-quarter of the 
wildlife authority's budget, and over 60% of this revenue was dedicated 
to anti-poaching efforts.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ P.A. Lindsey et al., The Significance of African Lions for the 
Financial Viability of Trophy Hunting and the Maintenance of Wild Land, 
PLoS ONE 7(1) (2012), https://journals.plos.org/plosone/
article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029332.
    \9\ E.g., Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority, 
Zimbabwe National Elephant Management Plan (2021-2025) (``Zimbabwe 
Elephant Plan''), pp. 11, 12, 14 (``Financial resources deployed in the 
management and general conservation of elephant during the years 2016 
to 2019, averaged approximately $5.6 million per year or about $90.00 
per km2 excluding administrative costs.''); I.R. Nkuwi, 
Conservation Status and Related Impacts of Elephants and Lion Trophy 
Ban to Tanzania, Presented During International Wildlife Conservation 
Council (Sept. 2018) (``Conservation Status of Elephant and Lion in 
Tanzania'').
    \10\ Showcasing Implementation of Zimbabwe's National Elephant 
Management Plan (2015-2020) and Its National Action Plan, CoP18 Inf. 32 
(2019), https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/cop/18/inf/E-CoP18-
Inf-032.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Further, hunting operators frequently run their own anti-poaching 
patrols, which reduce the national government's law enforcement burden 
and expand the ``boots on the ground''.\11\ It is not uncommon for 
hunting operators to spend $70,000 to $100,000 a year (or more) on 
anti-poaching. In the same vein, community game scouts, employed using 
revenues from safari hunting, extend poaching control into communal 
areas. For example, there are over 750 community game scouts in Zambia, 
funded by hunting revenues. Similarly, from 2010 to 2015, rural 
district councils in Zimbabwe spent $1.77 million on law enforcement 
activities in CAMPFIRE areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Zimbabwe Elephant Plan, p. 12 (``The presence of regulated 
hunting can also reduce illegal activities. Many hunting operators in 
Zimbabwe have specialised anti-poaching units. Private operators' lease 
agreements include anti-poaching as an obligation of the 
concessionaire.''); Conservation Status of Elephant and Lion in 
Tanzania.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These efforts are working--far better in hunting areas than in 
other parts of Africa, in which hunting is not part of the conservation 
regime. One key indicator of the level of elephant poaching, the 
Proportion of Illegally Killed Elephant (``PIKE''), shows both a 
consistent downward trend in elephant poaching in southern and eastern 
Africa, and that poaching is well below the ``unsustainable'' 
threshold.\12\ On the other hand, the PIKE in central and western 
Africa is considerably higher and above the ``unsustainable'' 
threshold. Faced with these metrics of success, it is difficult to 
understand why the Service sends so much money to countries without 
regulated hunting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ The CITES ``Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephant'' 
(``MIKE'') program collects data on elephant mortalities and causes of 
death, and evaluates relative poaching levels based on the PIKE, 
calculated as the number of illegally killed elephant divided by the 
total number of elephant carcasses observed. A PIKE value of 0.5 or 
above implies that more elephant died from illegal killing that any 
other causes. The 2022 MIKE report for eastern Africa shows ``strong 
evidence for . . . a downward trend [in poaching] from 2011 to 2021,'' 
and that ``[t]he trend [in poaching] in the last five years, from 2017 
to 2021, is downward.'' The PIKE for eastern Africa for 2021 was 
estimated at 0.28, which is well below the ``unsustainable'' threshold 
of 0.5 and well below the continental average of 0.40. CITES 
Secretariat, Report on Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants 
(MIKE), CoP19 Doc. 66.5 (2021), Sec. 23. Likewise, ``[i]n the last five 
years, from 2017 to 2021, there is strong evidence of a downward 
trend'' in poaching in southern Africa, and the PIKE was estimated at 
0.27, below the average continental PIKE estimate of 0.40.'' Id. 
Sec. 25. Notably, the high PIKE of 0.70 in western Africa, where there 
is no regulated hunting, increased the continental estimate. But the 
low elephant population and small sample size means the reliability of 
this PIKE estimate has ``a high level of uncertainty'' Id. 
Sec. Sec. 26-27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Habitat Protection
    Countries that allow for legal, well-regulated hunting protect 
habitat, save wildlife, support communities, and directly fight 
poaching. The primary threat facing elephants--and almost all species--
is loss of habitat. Hunting justifies the preservation of large tracts 
of intact habitat. Hunting areas protect far more land than national 
parks in the relevant range states, from 1.5 times as much land to more 
than five times as much land. Hunting areas also conserve far more 
habitat than national parks in popular photo-tourist destination 
countries that do not permit hunting, such as Kenya.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ For reference, Kenya is approximately two-thirds the size of 
Tanzania, but its elephant range is less than one-third the size of 
Tanzania's elephant range, and its elephant population is less than 
half as large as Tanzania's. African Elephant Specialist Group, 
Elephant Database, https://africanelephantdatabase.org/. ``[W]ildlife 
numbers outside parks have declined in Kenya since it banned hunting.'' 
R. Emslie et al., Prince William Is Talking Sense--Trophy Hunting Is 
Crucial to Conservation, The Independent (Mar. 18, 2016), https://
www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/prince-william-is-talking-sense-
trophy-hunting-is-crucial-to-conservation-a6940 506.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A 2007 study found that hunting areas protected over 22% more 
habitat than national parks, or twice the size of Texas, that is more 
than all formally protected areas on the continent combined.\14\ That 
figure does not account for the growth of communal conservancies, 
private ranches, and trans-frontier conservation areas (``TFCAs'') 
since 2007. For example, 50 communal conservancies in Namibia protected 
118,000 km2 in 2007. As of the end of 2021 (in the middle of 
the international Covid-19 pandemic), in Namibia alone, 86 
conservancies protected over 180,000 km2.\15\ Communal lands 
are of special importance, with the majority of elephant range in 
southern Africa on communal lands, outside strictly protected national 
park boundaries.\16\ The incentives from hunting (such as revenues, 
infrastructure projects, employment, and meat) help maintain this land 
as habitat and prevent its conversion to crops, livestock grazing, and 
other human purposes.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ P. Lindsey et al., Economic and Conservation Significance of 
the Trophy Hunting Industry in Sub-Saharan Africa, 134 Biological 
Conservation 455-469 (2007), https://www.perc.org/wp-content/uploads/
2015/08/Economic-and-conservation-significance.pdf.
    \15\ Namibian Association of CBNRM Support Organisations, State of 
Community Conservation in Namibia (2021) (``State of Community 
Conservation in Namibia''), http://www.nacso.org.na/resources/state-of-
community-conservation.
    \16\ Elephant Status Report, p. 138. Communal areas protect well 
over half a million square kilometers of habitat across southern 
Africa.
    \17\ R. Cooney at al., The Baby and the Bathwater: Trophy Hunting, 
Conservation and Rural Livelihoods, 68 Unasylva 249 (2017/1), https://
www.fao.org/3/i6855en/I6855EN.pdf; A. Dickman, Ending Trophy Hunting 
Could Actually Be Worse for Endangered Species, CNN (Nov. 24, 2017), 
https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/24/opinions/trophy-hunting-decline-of-
species-opinion-dickman/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Buffer zones created by hunting concessions provide critical 
habitat for protecting national parks and expand the habitat available 
for wildlife species. In part this explains why countries that depend 
on regulated hunting have the largest populations of elephant, rhino, 
lion, leopard, giraffe, wild dog, cheetah, and many more.
Community Livelihoods
    Hunting, especially elephant hunting, benefits the rural 
communities who live alongside elephants (and other species) and who 
are most impacted by this wildlife. Human-elephant conflict is a major 
issue in southern Africa. Communities are increasingly exposed to loss 
of crops, damage to water supplies and fences, and even physical harm 
to humans.\18\ For example, in the Zambezi and Erongo-Kunene regions of 
Namibia's communal conservancies, there was an average of 700 elephant 
conflict incidents reported between 2015-2019.\19\ When hunting was 
suspended in Zambia (2012-2014), the wildlife authority received over 
5,440 reports of crop or property damage and human injury caused by 
elephants. In ten communal districts in Zimbabwe, an estimated 50 
people were killed, and more than 7,000 hectares of crops were 
destroyed by elephants between 2010 and 2015. The financial losses of 
the crops were estimated to be as high as $1 million.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Botswana Department of Wildlife and National Parks, Botswana 
Elephant Management Plan and Action Plan (2021-2026), CoP19-Inf-102 
(``Botswana Elephant Plan''), p. 15; CAMPFIRE Association, The Role of 
Trophy Hunting of Elephant in Support of the Zimbabwe CAMPFIRE Program 
(Dec. 2016) (``CAMPFIRE Role of Trophy Hunting''); CAMPFIRE 
Association, Press Statement on Lifting of the Suspension of Elephant 
Trophy Imports into America (Nov. 21, 2017) (``CAMPFIRE Press 
Statement''), https://campfirezimbabwe.org/article/press-statement-21-
november-2017; N. Onishi, A Hunting Ban Saps a Village's Livelihood, 
The New York Times (Sept. 12, 2015).
    \19\ State of Community Conservation in Namibia, pp. 63-64.
    \20\ CAMPFIRE Press Statement.

    Hunting can help boost community tolerance for elephants through 
creating clear and direct benefits from wildlife. For example, in the 
national elephant management plan, the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Management Authority explains,

        When it is viewed as a valuable asset, wildlife becomes an 
        economically competitive land use in Zimbabwe, which leads to 
        habitat preservation instead of habitat destruction and 
        conversion to agriculture or livestock production. Game animals 
        have a survival advantage because of user-pay stewardship 
        systems where use revenue generated from tourist hunters is 
        paid through to wildlife authorities and local communities.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Zimbabwe Elephant Plan, p. 12.

    Prior to the Service's suspension of elephant trophy imports from 
Zimbabwe in 2014, hunting revenues averaged $2.2 million/year in 
CAMPFIRE Areas, and elephant hunting alone generated approximately $1.6 
million/year (70% of the total on average).\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ CAMPFIRE Role of Trophy Hunting; CAMPFIRE Press Statement.

    Opposing potential restrictions on trophy imports in the state of 
Connecticut, the Director of Zambia's Department of National Parks and 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wildlife explained,

        the benefits of regulated hunting are crucial to maintaining 
        rural community support for growing populations of dangerous 
        game such as elephants, lions, and leopards. . . . [S]ome of 
        Zambia's poorest communities bear the greatest impact of crop-
        raiding elephants . . . But these communities tolerate the 
        wildlife largely because they derive income, social services, 
        and much-needed game meat from regulated hunting.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ C. Simukonda, CT's Ban of 6 African Species Would Hurt, Not 
Save, Wildlife, Stamford Advocate (Apr. 19, 2021), Stamford Advocate, 
https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/opinion/article/Opinion-CT-s-ban-of-6-
African-species-would-16105621.php.

    Under Zambia law, at least half of all hunter-harvested game meat 
must be shared with local communities, resulting in approximately 
130,000 kg of fresh game meat provisioned each year to local 
communities.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ P.A. White & J.L. Belant, Provisioning of Game Meat to Rural 
Communities as a Benefit of Sport Hunting in Zambia, PLoS ONE 10(2) 
(2015), https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/
journal.pone.0117237.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Similarly, approximately 55% of the hunting revenues in Namibia's 
communal conservancies come from elephant hunts alone. The 
conservancies secure otherwise unprotected habitat across 180,000 
km2 and benefit 238,700 people.\25\ Revenue from hunting is 
reinvested into badly needed rural infrastructure, like construction of 
clinics and schools, improvements in drinking water, building and 
improving roads, and much more.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ R. Naidoo et al., Complementary Benefits of Tourism and 
Hunting to Communal Conservancies in Namibia, 30 Conservation Biology 
(Jan. 8, 2016), p. 635, https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/
10.1111/cobi.12643; State of Community Conservation in Namibia, p. 11.
    \26\ E.g., E. Koro, Significant Benefits: The Reason Why Hunting 
Will Not Stop in Africa Despite Foreign Opposition, The Chronicle (Feb. 
22, 2023), https://www.chronicle.co.zw/significant-benefits-the-reason-
why-hunting-will-not-stop-in-africa-despite-foreign-opposition/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, when rural communities live near hunting areas (common 
in some countries, less common in others), elephant hunting provides 
much-needed protein. Hunting operators and conservancies are also major 
sources of employment in the remote areas where hunting takes 
place.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ R. Cooney at al., The Baby and the Bathwater: Trophy Hunting, 
Conservation and Rural Livelihoods, 68 Unasylva 249 (2017/1), https://
www.fao.org/3/i6855en/I6855EN.pdf.

    Botswana's President took to international media to explain why 
Botswana was reopening hunting after a moratorium; \28\ this is further 
explained in Botswana's national elephant management plan:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ H.E.M. Masisi, Hunting Elephants Will Help Them Survive, Wall 
Street Journal (June 19, 2019), https://www.wsj.com/articles/hunting-
elephants-will-help-them-survive-11560985152.

        The hunting moratorium [in Botswana] resulted in ill-feeling in 
        a number of communities and settlements, especially from 
        members of the local population who regard hunting as a 
        traditional way of life. Many local people were formerly 
        reliant on controlled hunting for food, income and employment 
        especially on marginal lands where elephant occur but where 
        land that is not suitable and financially viable for 
        photographic tourism and other economic options, such 
        agriculture is very limited. . . . When hunting was suspended 
        in 2014, many community Trusts in northern Botswana experienced 
        large declines in income.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Botswana Elephant Plan, pp. 21, 23; see also E. Koro, Inside 
Botswana Communities' 21st century International Hunting Windfall, 
Zimbabwe Independent (Mar. 15, 2023), https://www.theindependent.co.zw/
local-news/article/200008854/inside-botswana-communities-21st-century-
international-hunting-windfall (discussing benefits to Botswana 
communities from reopening of regulated hunting).

    Currently, countries where regulated hunting is banned or severely 
limited are using MSCF grants to fund otherwise unsuccessful 
conservation strategies because they do not achieve the same benefits 
that sustainable use conservation hunting programs generate. In other 
words, the very fact that most of these grants go to programs in range 
states that do not have robust sustainable use conservation hunting 
programs is indicative of the failure of hunting prohibitions. These 
countries use MSCF funds as a ``crutch'' to fund the same programs 
successfully paid for by hunting revenue in range states. Why is the 
Service rewarding ill planned conservation strategies? This is a 
diversion of the bulk of the funds from countries and communities whose 
population management strategies represent the most substantial and 
effective form of conservation.
Conclusion

    In essence, the grant programs should be utilized to help protect 
habitat and incentivize good conservation practices, including 
community-based conservation. These programs ensure a low-overhead, 
results-based approach to maximize effectiveness, efficiency, and 
conservation success. Hunting already does all of the above. It helps 
protect target species like elephant and rhino. It helps reduce 
trafficking with boots on the ground anti-poaching efforts. It is low 
overhead and results-based--hunting cannot occur without a sustainable 
and sizable population. And the countries that rely on hunting have 
documented conservation success.
    SCI supports H.R. 5009 and the relevant grant programs but the 
process for putting funds into conservation has become too tangled and 
dominated by large international NGOs. Congress and the Service should 
work to reduce the paperwork and bureaucratic burden required to access 
these funds and incentivize successful conservation programs, rather 
than continuously sinking grant monies into programs antithetical to 
community-centered conservation that have little chance of on-the-
ground success.

                                 ______
                                 

 Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Ben Cassidy, Executive Vice 
       President of International, Government and Public Affairs,
                       Safari Club International

              Questions Submitted by Representative Bentz

    Question 1. Mr. Cassidy, in your testimony, you mentioned that the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's actions do not always support 
international community-centered conservation. Can you provide 
additional explanation as to what the Service can do better related to 
international conservation?

    Answer.

1. Remove regulatory red tape.

    In the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Congress did not require 
permits for most hunting trophies. In fact, Congress created a 
presumption of legality for the import of most hunting trophies in 
Section 9(c)(2) of the ESA.\1\ Under this presumption, most hunting 
trophies would be importable without a permit. However, the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service (USFWS), by regulation, has overridden this 
presumption of legality for species including elephant, argali, and 
lion--the latter, over the objections of range countries. By so doing, 
the USFWS has created red tape for the range countries with the world's 
largest populations of these species. And it has created more work for 
itself. As explained in my testimony, the USFWS has been unable to 
timely process permits. The delays and uncertainty created by the USFWS 
permit requirements are one way by which the USFWS does not support 
community-centered conservation. And the USFWS could address this 
problem fairly easily. It could amend its regulations to remove the 
permit requirements. That would make its administration of the ESA more 
consistent with Congress' intent in Section 9(c)(2). And it would be 
more consistent with Section 8 of the ESA, which requires the USFWS to 
``encourage foreign conservation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Section 9(c)(2) is codified at 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1538(c)(2) 
(presuming as legal the non-commercial import of species that are not 
listed as endangered and are already protected by listing on Appendix 
II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of 
Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)). Hunting trophies are imported for non-
commercial purposes. Several notable species that are hunted--argali 
from Central Africa, lion from southern Africa, almost all elephant 
from southern Africa--are listed as threatened (so not listed as 
endangered) and are listed on Appendix II of CITES. But for USFWS 
regulations, the import of hunting trophies of these species would be 
presumed legal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Respond to community requests for amended regulations that recognize 
        and support community-centered conservation.

    Two community associations, the CAMPFIRE Association representing 
rural communities in Zimbabwe and the Ngamiland Council of Non-
Governmental Organizations (NCONGO) from Botswana submitted a petition 
in 2021 to the Department of the Interior, asking to revise USFWS 
regulations to reduce the burden on rural and local communities and to 
make the regulations consistent with the President's Executive Order on 
Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities through 
the Federal Government.\2\ The USFWS has not proposed regulations in 
response to this petition. But the suggestions from these community 
representatives would provide a good starting point for how the USFWS 
could improve its international conservation efforts, should the USFWS 
decline to remove the regulations that serve as barriers to 
conservation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.campfirezimbabwe.org/sites/default/files/
petition_ncgongo_ca.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Streamline the permitting process.

    At the very least, the USFWS should reconsider how it goes about 
its permitting process. Rural communities and range countries routinely 
object to the USFWS ``moving the target'' for how to demonstrate the 
undefined term of ``enhancement'' required in USFWS regulations.\3\ 
Until 2014, the ``enhancement'' requirement sought a demonstration of 
benefits, typically in terms of habitat protection, anti-poaching 
funding, or improved community livelihoods. Range countries with 
hunting programs could make this showing without much difficulty. 
Countries like Botswana, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, 
Zambia, and Zimbabwe indisputably have more habitat set aside for 
wildlife than in countries without hunting, have stable sources of 
anti-poaching funding, and are implementing community-based 
conservation programs. Thus, these countries maintain the world's 
largest populations of elephants, giraffes, leopards, lions, and other 
species. But the USFWS has gradually moved away from its prior 
interpretation of ``enhancement.'' In 2014, for example, despite 
recognizing that Zimbabwe has an elephant population exceeding 80,000, 
the USFWS suspended the issuance of import permits for elephant from 
Zimbabwe without warning or notice because it found Zimbabwe's 17-year-
old national elephant management plan was ``outdated.'' Similarly, in 
late 2022 the USFWS published a proposed rule that would require range 
countries to make a host of certifications on very specific points.\4\ 
The USFWS should go back to its previous interpretation of 
``enhancement,'' which created less of a barrier to imports and less of 
a detriment to community-centered conservation programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ See, e.g., 50 C.F.R. Sec. 17.32, Sec. 17.40(e), (j).
    \4\ SCI's comments explaining the many shortcomings of this 
proposal are available at https://safariclub.org/wp-content/uploads/
2023/03/2023-03-20-Elephant-4d-Rule-Comment-Final37.pdf?_ 
s=0i1gtazdh4pevnasl74i.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, the USFWS could make nationwide enhancement findings. 
For argali sheep, USFWS regulations would permit such national findings 
to be made by the USFWS Director and published in the Federal 
Register.\5\ For elephants and lions, the USFWS could develop these 
findings under its typical notice-and-comment rulemaking process. 
Although the initial rulemaking would take a little more time than the 
current individual enhancement findings, the USFWS could reduce its 
overall burden, as well as the burden on individual hunters, and would 
give confidence that imports could occur pursuant to a rulemaking. The 
USFWS could consider setting the rule for set duration, such as ten 
years, and then revisit the rule as needed. That would assist 
communities and range countries with their conservation planning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ 50 C.F.R. Sec. 17.40(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Streamline the grant application process.

    As explained in my testimony, the process for applying for 
Multinational Species Conservation Fund grants is onerous. As a result, 
the grants are often awarded to U.S. non-governmental organizations 
(NGOs) who then partner with NGOs in range countries. Rural communities 
do not often partner with U.S. NGOs in the same way--especially in 
southern Africa, where wildlife populations are healthier. The USFWS 
should reduce the paperwork associated with the grant program. It could 
also develop specific grants for which local communities could apply, 
such as grants under the African Elephant Conservation Fund to reduce 
human-elephant conflicts. It could also develop a specific grant 
program for the range countries themselves, again, with reduced 
paperwork. Such a program would be consistent with the directive of the 
African Elephant Conservation Act.

    Question 2. Promotion of community-centered conservation seems to 
have broad bipartisan support in Congress. In addition to passing the 
WILD Act, what else can Congress do to promote international wildlife 
conservation and fix related challenges?

    Answer.

1. Make minor amendments to the ESA to encourage foreign conservation, 
        including by making Section 9(c)(2) mandatory.

    Fifty years ago this December, the U.S. Congress passed, and 
President Nixon signed, the ESA into law. The Supreme Court has called 
the ESA ``the most comprehensive legislation for the preservation of 
endangered species enacted by any nation.'' \6\ But sprawling, 
comprehensive legislation can become less effective over time when 
administrative agencies take liberties to implement the statute 
differently than intended. Having the benefit of learning from 50 years 
of implementation, Congress can reflect on what was intended when the 
ESA was enacted, how the law is implemented by the USFWS, and how to 
fix situations in which implementation conflicts with Congress' 
original intent. A few small changes can make a significant and 
meaningful impact that will benefit international wildlife 
conservation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 180 (1978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Perhaps the best example of a small change with big impact is 
amending Section 9(c)(2) of the ESA.\7\ This section was intended to 
facilitate the import of certain foreign species. When adopting the 
ESA, the 1977 Congress undoubtedly realized that the USFWS has no power 
to regulate foreign species on foreign soil. Thus, the ESA's signature 
protections, such as recovery planning and critical habitat 
designations, cannot apply to foreign species. The USFWS only has the 
authority to regulate the import of these species.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1538(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congress expected the USFWS to use this authority as a carrot, not 
a stick--and Section 9(c)(2) and its legislative history reflect this 
expectation. Section 9(c)(2) provides that the import of a non-
endangered (i.e., threatened or non-ESA listed) species, which is 
already protected by listing on Appendix II of CITES and which is not 
being imported for commercial purposes, is presumed to be legal. 
However, the USFWS has interpreted Section 9(c)(2) as a rebuttable 
presumption and asserts that it has rebutted the presumption for a 
number of ESA threatened and CITES Appendix II species, including 
African elephant, lion, and Asian argali. Thus, the exemption does not 
apply for import of these species, and ESA import permits are required.
    The ``architect'' of the ESA, Michigan Rep. John Dingell, explained 
that this section was included primarily so that the import of hunting 
trophies from healthy wildlife populations could continue without 
obstruction. Rep. Dingell acknowledged that the bill which became the 
ESA ``ha[d] been attacked by some as a[n] anti-hunter bill; it ha[d] 
been attacked by others as a prohunter bill. In reality, it is 
neither.'' He explained that the ESA was ``carefully drafted to 
encourage . . . foreign governments to develop healthy stocks of 
animals occurring naturally within their borders. If these animals are 
considered valuable as trophy animals, and are not endangered, they 
should be regarded as a potential source of revenue to the managing 
agency and they should be encouraged to develop to the maximum extent 
compatible with the ecosystem upon which they depend.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ House Consideration and Passage of H.R. 37 with Amendments, 
U.S. Congressional Record (Sept. 18, 1973), p. 195.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rep. Dingell further confirmed that the Department of the Interior 
would place ``no barriers'' on the import of ``nonendangered trophy 
animals'' from countries where they ``are being managed in such a way 
as to assure their continued and healthy existence.'' He concluded: 
``This is as it should be, because it is only in the understanding that 
these animals have a real and measurable value that many of the less 
developed countries will agree to take steps to assure their continued 
existence.'' \9\ According to Rep. Dingell, Section 9(c)(2) was 
intended to provide security for those who lawfully hunted animals in 
these countries, so they could import the animals without fear the 
USFWS would block their imports. Yet that is exactly what the USFWS has 
done.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the last few years, the USFWS has developed a huge backlog for 
the import of hunting trophies, for personal (non-commercial) purposes, 
from countries with impressive conservation records. For example, the 
USFWS has hundreds of permit applications pending for the import of 
elephant trophies from Botswana, Zimbabwe, Namibia, and South Africa. 
These four countries conserve over half the world's elephants; they 
also account for almost 90% of imports of elephant hunting trophies. 
Elephants are listed as threatened, not endangered, and elephants from 
these populations are listed on Appendix II of CITES. But for USFWS 
regulations, these imports would be exempt from ESA permit requirements 
pursuant to Section 9(c)(2). The same is true for lions from southern 
Africa, argali from central Asia, and a number of other species 
worldwide. An amendment to Section 9(c)(2) would alleviate a 
significant (self-inflicted) burden on the USFWS' permitting office and 
allow those federal employees to focus on species that truly need 
permitting oversight.
    Countries around the world depend on the revenues and other 
benefits from hunting to justify and fund the protection of habitat, 
and to incentivize conservation of these species by private and 
community stakeholders. In southern Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe, and 
Namibia, countries with large elephant populations and increasing lion 
populations, have well-developed community-centered conservation 
programs that ensure the people who live side-by-side with dangerous 
megafauna can benefit from regulated hunting. Yet these well-developed 
programs are negatively impacted by import restrictions. These 
countries, and their communities, private stakeholders and ecologists, 
have spoken out against such restrictions. But their comments have 
fallen on deaf ears. Despite the opposition from range countries, the 
USFWS continues to put up barriers to the import of hunting trophies.
    Congress could fix this problem with a one-sentence amendment to 
the ESA. Congress could make the language in Section 9(c)(2) mandatory. 
In other words, instead of ``presuming'' the legality of imports, 
Congress could simply declare that the non-commercial import of non-
endangered species already regulated by Appendix II of CITES is legal 
and does not require import permits.

    The corrective amendment to Section 9(c)(2) is as simple as:

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3813.001
    

    .epsThis change would effectuate the original intent of Congress 
when it included Section 9(c)(2) in the ESA. As Rep. Dingell declared, 
allowing the import of trophies from healthy wildlife populations ``is 
as it should be.'' \10\ But it is not how it is.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ House Consideration and Passage of H.R. 37 with Amendments, 
U.S. Congressional Record (Sept. 18, 1973), p. 195.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Require robust consultation with range states prior to listing 
        amendments and special rule amendments.

    The ESA's predecessor, the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 
1966, only applied to domestic species. In 1969, that law was amended 
to allow the listing of foreign species as threatened or endangered, 
but only for purposes of regulating international commercial trade.
    The 1977 ESA for the first time allowed foreign species to be 
listed the same as domestic species. In so doing, Congress required the 
USFWS to ``encourage foreign conservation programs,'' ESA Section 
8,\11\ and to ``take these [programs] into account'' when making a 
listing determination, ESA Section 4(b).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Section 8 is codified at 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1537.
    \12\ Section 4(b) is codified at 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1533(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite these--and other--directives from Congress, the USFWS 
routinely fails to fully consider foreign conservation programs when 
deciding whether to list a species or when amending a listing rule. The 
USFWS also fails to consider any negative impacts that listing 
decisions may have on such foreign conservation programs. And the USFWS 
generally fails to use its listing authority to encourage foreign 
conservation; rather, it tends to apply sweeping rules and restrictions 
that do not adequately differentiate between countries that have 
successful conservation and those that do not.

    To help rectify this defective approach to foreign species 
conservation, Congress should amend Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA:

        Section 4(b)(1) of the Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1533(b)(1)) is 
        amended to include the following subsection (C):

        (C) In carrying out this subsection and taking into account 
        efforts made by any foreign nation, or any political 
        subdivision of a foreign nation, to protect such species, the 
        Secretary shall:

             (i)(a) Contact, in-person if practicable, any nation in 
        which such species is presently found in significant numbers 
        (at least 3% of the estimated global population), to consult on 
        the status of the species in that nation and potential negative 
        impacts of the listing on that nation's conservation programs; 
        and (b) Provide a questionnaire asking for information on 
        conservation practices to protect the species in that country, 
        to which the foreign nation shall be provided a reasonable time 
        to respond.

             (ii) Give any information provided in response to this 
        consultation request and/or questionnaire the highest weight in 
        assessing the factors identified in the above section.

             (iii) Determine not to list such species in the relevant 
        foreign nation if information provided by that nation 
        demonstrates that its conservation efforts, including predator 
        control, protection of habitat and food supply, or other 
        conservation practices, are reasonably maintaining the 
        available habitat and current population of the species in that 
        nation (which may include a decline in the current population, 
        if the decline is not considered statistically significant by 
        peer-reviewed scientific analyses), unless compelling 
        scientific or management data indicate otherwise.

             (iv) Explain in any rule listing such species, based on 
        country-specific data and findings, why the listing is 
        necessary despite any negative impact on the foreign nation's 
        conservation efforts demonstrated by that foreign nation in 
        response to the consultation and/or questionnaire required by 
        this section.

    If the ESA is really going to protect and recover species, the 
USFWS should be working with range countries, not against them. The 
USFWS, via the ESA, should better acknowledge successful conservation 
efforts and apply the burden of ESA listings only on those countries 
that have demonstrated an inability to successfully conserve the 
relevant species.

    Question 3. In addition to these grants, what programs or efforts 
does the USFWS have in place to encourage foreign conservation? How 
could the USFWS improve its international conservation efforts?

    Answer. To SCI's knowledge, the USFWS has very few programs in 
place to encourage foreign conservation, outside of these grant 
programs. That belief was reinforced by the proposed 4(d) rule for 
African elephant that the USFWS published in November 2022, which has 
been vigorously opposed by the southern African range countries.\13\ In 
the proposed rule and the subsequent public listening session to 
explain the proposal, the USFWS stated that it provides ``technical 
assistance and capacity building'' for range countries, but clarified 
that such assistance is specific to how to comply with U.S. 
requirements for import of hunting trophies. Such a program is not 
really ``technical assistance.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ 87 Fed. Reg. 68975 (Nov. 17, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to the recommendations above to revise its regulatory 
requirements, the USFWS could improve its international conservation 
efforts by developing a technical assistance and capacity building 
program, where it could assist range countries with on-the-ground 
conservation. Similarly, if the USFWS is concerned about law 
enforcement or legal requirements in range countries, the USFWS could 
develop programs that provide technical assistance and capacity 
building in these areas. The USFWS could hire biologists to help 
develop best practices for habitat protection, anti-poaching, or 
reducing human-wildlife conflicts, and share these best practices with 
range countries. Should the USFWS endeavor to provide such assistance, 
SCI is confident that the USFWS biologists and on-the-ground agents 
would likewise learn from the range state personnel who successfully 
conserve the world's most charismatic megafauna.

    Question 4. In your opinion, are the USFWS' international 
conservation efforts effective? Why or why not? What could the USFWS do 
better?

    Answer. Some of the USFWS' international conservation efforts are 
effective. The USFWS has issued many grants that have assisted with on-
the-ground conservation. The Kavango Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation 
Area (KAZA) elephant survey is a good example of an effective use of 
USFWS grants.\14\ But, at least with respect to southern Africa, the 
USFWS has used its permitting power as a stick--not as a carrot. The 
USFWS can do better by no longer trying to force foreign conservation 
efforts into compliance with USFWS permitting requests and demands, 
which are inflexible and often ignore the differences among the land 
tenures and conservation programs of the countries in southern Africa. 
Instead, the USFWS should focus on partnering with countries, as well 
as local and rural communities, to continue their track record of 
successful conservation. As discussed throughout these responses, the 
USFWS can do this by listening to the range countries, instead of 
ignoring their petitions or their opposition to proposed USFWS 
policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Information about the KAZA elephant survey is available at 
https://safariclub.org/kaza-elephant-survey-results/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Question 5. In addition to reauthorizing these grant programs, what 
could Congress do to improve the USFWS' international conservation 
efforts?

    Answer. In addition to the reauthorization of conservation funding 
under the WILD Act and the minor ESA amendments discussed above, 
Congress can further support international conservation efforts by 
adopting the U.S. Foundation for International Conservation Act 
(USFICA), H.R. 1298.

    USFICA will enhance global conservation efforts by leveraging 
public-private partnerships, empowering local communities, expanding 
habitat buffer zones, and promoting sustainable use of natural 
resources. Congress should pass the bill as critical to safeguarding 
biodiversity and promoting sustainable use, community-centered 
conservation around the world.

     The bill's 1:1 public-private funding formula will advance 
            efficient and dynamic conservation projects beyond federal 
            bureaucracy while boosting current government and NGO 
            efforts.

     The bill appropriately recognizes that tailoring 
            conservation to local needs leads to security and 
            sustainable development.

     The bill's funding can be used for developing buffer zones 
            around protected areas, which helps to reduce human-
            wildlife conflict.

     The bill acknowledges that local communities and 
            governments, particularly in southern Africa, have a right 
            to manage their wildlife and benefit from their natural 
            resources; hunters' support is critical to these wildlife 
            economies.

    USFICA has bipartisan support in Congress and broad support from 
conservation stakeholders. As it will provide long-term, core support 
for conserved areas and leverage additional contributions from other 
funding sources, SCI encourages Congress to pass USFICA as another 
measure that will provide support for community-centered conservation.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
    I now recognize Ms. Wraithmell for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF JULIE WRAITHMELL, VICE PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE 
           DIRECTOR, AUDUBON FLORIDA, MIAMI, FLORIDA

    Ms. Wraithmell. Thank you, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member 
Huffman, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify before you today in support of H.R. 
4389, the Migratory Birds of the Americas Conservation 
Enhancements Act.
    My name is Julie Wraithmell. I am the Vice President and 
Executive Director of Audubon Florida, the Florida State 
program of the National Audubon Society. With our nearly 2 
million members, Audubon works to protect birds in the places 
that they need through our 16 state and regional offices, 32 
centers, 450 chapters, and by working in 10 countries across 
the Americas.
    Over the past few weeks, millions of migratory birds have 
been passing through my home state, Florida, as well as 
Washington, DC, and communities across the United States during 
their fall migration. These birds are undertaking awe-inspiring 
journeys from their nesting habitat throughout America. More 
than half of our country's birds will fly to Latin America and 
the Caribbean to winter, including hundreds of beloved species 
of birds like orioles, hummingbirds, ducks, shorebirds, hawks, 
and many more.
    It is only normal for us to think of the birds of our 
everyday lives, the birds of our neighborhoods and communities 
as ``our birds,'' belonging to that place. But in reality, many 
of them are only on loan to us and, in fact, spend their lives 
in motion washing like tides back and forth across the 
hemisphere. These lives in motion are made possible by a 
connected chain of habitats like stepping stones that birds 
have depended upon for thousands of years.
    In Florida, I can do everything that I can to protect the 
places that my birds need in my state. But no matter how 
successful I am, the chain is only as strong as its weakest 
link. And if the links to Florida's south are failing, the 
birds that we bid farewell to in the fall won't return to us 
again in the spring.
    The presence of migratory birds in our communities provides 
a deep sense of joy and wonder, whether it is birds like 
Baltimore orioles gracing our backyard trees and feeders, 
purple martins raising their families in our schoolyards and 
farms, to waterfowl such as blue winged teal dabbling in local 
wetlands. More than 96 million people participated in bird 
watching in 2022, according to the latest survey released by 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. And consumer spending on 
bird feeding, bird watching equipment, and travel creates more 
than $100 billion in economic output annually. Birds also 
provide numerous ecosystem services, including pest control, 
pollination, seed dispersal, and more.
    Tragically, bird populations are in steep decline, which 
means that these benefits to people and communities are also 
disappearing. A 2019 report found that North America's bird 
population has declined by 3 billion birds since 1970. That is 
more than 1 in 4 birds on the continent that have vanished in 
less than a lifetime.
    Recognizing the need for migratory bird conservation 
investments, Congress passed the Neotropical Migratory Bird 
Conservation Act in 2000. Since its inception, this program has 
provided essential conservation funding across the Americas by 
catalyzing partnerships and investing in cost-effective 
projects to improve habitat conservation, promote bird-friendly 
land use and farming practices, advanced research, and more. 
Since 2000, the program has supported more than 700 projects 
across 43 countries, benefiting more than 5 million acres of 
habitat. Of the $89 million invested by the United States, 
partners have brought an additional $346 million to the table.
    Audubon supports the Migratory Birds of the Americas 
Conservation Enhancements Act because it will help address 
several current needs and opportunities for migratory birds. 
The legislation will grow its authorized funding to meet the 
demand for the program and the needs of our declining bird 
populations, and it will improve the program's accessibility by 
amending the matching requirement which has been identified as 
an obstacle for partners, especially for smaller organizations 
that do not have access to large funding resources.
    Now is the time to reauthorize and enhance the Neotropical 
Migratory Bird Conservation Act through passage of this 
legislation. We are grateful for the leadership of 
Representatives Salazar, Larsen, Joyce, and Peltola for 
introducing this bipartisan bill, and to the Subcommittee for 
holding this hearing. We encourage the advancement of this bill 
to support America's migratory birds so that they can continue 
to provide the significant value to the nation that they do, 
and contribute to part of what makes America special.
    Thank you, and I would look forward to any questions that 
you may have.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Wraithmell follows:]
      Prepared Statement of Julie Wraithmell, Executive Director,
                            Audubon Florida
                              on H.R. 4389

    Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and Members of the 
Subcommittee--thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today 
in support of H.R. 4389, the Migratory Birds of the Americas 
Conservation Enhancements Act.

    My name is Julie Wraithmell, and I am the Vice President and 
Executive Director of Audubon Florida, a state office of the National 
Audubon Society. Nationwide, Audubon represents nearly 2 million 
members and works to protect birds and the places they need through its 
16 state and regional offices, 32 centers, 23 sanctuaries, more than 
450 grassroots chapters, and by working in ten countries across the 
Americas.
    Audubon Florida is Audubon's largest state program with nearly 
100,000 members, around 100 researchers, resource managers, educators, 
and policy staff working to protect our water, wildlife, habitat, and 
climate through the lens of birds.
    Over the past several weeks, millions of migratory birds have been 
passing through Florida, Washington, DC, and communities across the 
United States during their fall migration, when many of the birds who 
nest in the U.S. and Canada head south for the winter. According to the 
bird migration tracking tool, BirdCast, more than 415 million birds 
have migrated across Florida since August--including more than 54 
million birds on one night alone.
    These birds are undertaking awe-inspiring journeys, traveling from 
their nesting habitat throughout America and as far north as the Arctic 
and the vast boreal forest of Canada. Some overwinter in the southern 
U.S., but more than half of America's birds will make their way to 
Latin America and the Caribbean to winter--some traveling thousands of 
miles and navigating countless hazards. This includes hundreds of 
beloved species of birds from across the nation, such as orioles, 
hummingbirds, swallows, ducks, shorebirds, hawks, and many more.
    Many of them migrate at night, navigating by the stars, the earth's 
magnetic field, and even the low frequency rumble of waves on distant 
shores and winds crossing distant mountain ranges. Some, like 
Whimbrels, a large shorebird, may fly for days nonstop over water. 
Others, like Ruby-throated Hummingbirds, will lose more than 60% of 
their bodyweight in their 15-hour nonstop flight across the Gulf of 
Mexico from Louisiana to the Yucatan.
    Some, like the Red Knot, spend their lives in perpetual summer--
spending the northern hemisphere's summer nesting on the tundra and 
enjoying the southern hemisphere's summer at the southern tip of South 
America.
    The Blackpoll Warbler will fly up to 12,000 miles each year, from 
as far as Alaska to Brazil, including nonstop journeys for days at a 
time, while weighing as much as a AAA battery. Many of these journeys 
are illustrated through Audubon's Bird Migration Explorer, which brings 
together the latest tracking data for more than 450 species of birds, 
along with conservation challenges they face along the way, and the 
connections they illuminate between places across the hemisphere.
    It's only normal for us to think of the birds of our everyday 
lives--the birds of our neighborhoods and communities, states, and 
regions, as our birds, belonging to that place. But in reality, many of 
them are only on loan to us, and in fact spend their lives in motion, 
washing like tides back and forth across the hemisphere.
    These lives in motion are made possible by habitat anchors, where 
birds nest in the north and winter in the south, connected by a chain 
of essential habitats like stepping stones that the birds have depended 
on for tens of thousands of years. In Florida, we can do everything we 
can to protect the places ``my'' birds need in the state. But no matter 
how successful we are, the chain is only as strong as its weakest link. 
And if the links to Florida's south are failing, the birds we bid 
farewell to in the fall, won't return to us again in the spring.
    The presence of migratory birds in our communities during parts of 
the year provides a deep sense of joy and wonder for people across the 
country. Whether it's the enjoyment of birds in our backyards like 
Baltimore Orioles gracing our trees and birdfeeders, Purple Martins 
raising their young in our schoolyards and farms, to the waterfowl such 
as Blue-Winged Teal dabbling in local wetlands, to the jewel-toned 
warblers that delight birders in our local parks, National Wildlife 
Refuges, and beyond.
    Last week, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Association 
of Fish and Wildlife Agencies released a new survey, which found that 
more than 96 million people across the country participated in 
birdwatching in 2022, including around the home and during travel. That 
represents more than 1 in 4 people in the country, making it one of the 
most popular and fastest-growing pastimes in America. 95% of those 
participants enjoyed birdwatching around the home, and nearly half of 
them--more than 43 million people--traveled outside the home to observe 
wild birds. And during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, 
participation surged as millions of people found solace and comfort in 
watching birds around their homes and neighborhoods.
    Birds also provide significant cultural, spiritual, and subsistence 
values to communities, and a direct connection to nature. They provide 
numerous ecosystem services, such as pest control by consuming insects 
that can damage our agricultural production and forests, while feeding 
on mosquitoes in our communities, as well as supporting pollination of 
our crops, seed dispersal, and more. Studies have even found that the 
presence of birds benefits our psychological well-being.
    And birds have a major economic impact. The 96 million people that 
participate in birdwatching results in substantial consumer spending on 
bird-feeding, birdwatching equipment, and travel, which supports local 
communities around the nation, and creates more than $100 billion in 
economic output annually. Wildlife-watching generally has a substantial 
and growing economic impact. The most recent FWS and
    AFWA survey found that wildlife-watchers spent more than $250 
billion on these activities in 2022, including trip-related expenses, 
equipment, and more.
    Bird migration hotspots like Cape May NJ, Hawk Mountain PA, Grand 
Isle LA, Bosque del Apache NM, Magee Marsh OH, and Platte River NE 
demonstrate that protecting their habitat makes dollars and sense 
because of the wildlife-viewing tourism-economies driven by birds.
    In Southwest Florida, Audubon's Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary attracts 
more than 100,000 people every year to enjoy birdwatching and wildlife 
viewing. In many regions across the hemisphere, bird watching supports 
sustainable ecotourism, which provides economic lifelines to 
communities while keeping birds and ecosystems healthy.
    Tragically, bird populations have been in decline for decades, 
which means that these valuable benefits to people and communities are 
also disappearing. A 2019 report found that North America's bird 
population has declined by 3 billion birds since 1970--in other words, 
more than 1 in 4 birds on the continent have vanished in less than a 
lifetime.
    The 2022 State of the Birds report found that birds of nearly all 
types and in all landscapes, except for waterfowl and wetland-dependent 
birds, are in decline, including more than half of all bird species. On 
the one hand, the recovery of our waterfowl populations shows that 
conservation efforts can work with sufficient resources and 
partnerships. Yet the report also found that 70 species are now at a 
tipping point, which have already lost half of their populations since 
1970, and their populations will be further halved in the years ahead 
without action.
    Birds are indicators of the health of our environment. So declining 
bird populations means that the health of our ecosystems and the 
conditions that support human well-being are also in decline. And we 
also know that birds are facing ongoing and increasing threats. This 
includes habitat loss, pollution, preventable mortality, climate 
change, and more. These threats are putting increasing pressure on bird 
populations which only increases the need to invest further resources 
in their conservation.
    For example, devastating wildfires in the U.S. and in the boreal 
forest of Canada are creating tragic impacts for people and communities 
and damaging habitat for millions of migratory birds, and increasing 
hazards during migration such as building collisions present serious 
challenges to birds. This month in Chicago, more than 1,000 migratory 
birds died at just one building along the lakefront, which puts further 
stress on their populations.
    Migratory birds--especially the hundreds of species that travel 
long-distances across the hemisphere--have seen some of the greatest 
population declines, and face some of the most significant challenges 
going forward. Of the 3 billion birds lost since 1970, 2.5 billion were 
migratory birds. That includes a loss of more than 2 in 5 Baltimore 
Orioles and Barn Swallows on the continent. Bird species that migrate 
to South America have declined overall by more than 40%. While these 
recent numbers paint a stark and shocking picture, the declines and 
needs for migratory birds have been known for many years.
    That's why Congress passed the Neotropical Migratory Bird 
Conservation Act in 2000. That bipartisan legislation, passed with 
leadership from the late Congressman Don Young, created a grant program 
to support bird conservation efforts throughout the Western Hemisphere.
    This program provides an essential source of funding and 
partnerships for migratory bird conservation across the Americas. It 
enables the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to support efforts across 
the U.S., Canada, Latin America, and the Caribbean, by catalyzing 
partnerships and investing in cost-effective projects that benefits 
bird habitat, enhances education and awareness, advances necessary 
research and coordination, and more.
    Successful bird conservation in our states and across the nation 
depends on conservation and partnerships not only in the states, but 
across the full ranges of migratory birds. Maintaining and recovering 
bird populations will require working together within the United 
States, and also in places like Colombia, Panama, Chile, Mexico, 
Canada, and more.
    This program helps to preserve all the links in the chain of 
migration that these birds depend upon. In part because of the 
concentration and importance of wintering migratory birds in certain 
regions, these projects can be a highly cost-effective investment in 
conservation and make an outsized impact. Moreover, many of these 
wintering and migratory stopover sites in Latin America continue to be 
at risk from habitat loss, including deforestation, and the program 
supports efforts to target key places for conservation to address these 
challenges.
    Since 2000, the NMBCA program has supported more than 700 projects, 
across 43 countries, benefiting more than 5 million acres of habitat. 
Of the $89 million invested by the U.S., partners have brought more 
than $346 million to the table. These projects have advanced 
conservation across the entire flyways of migratory birds and their 
full annual cycle.
    For example, the Wood Thrush is an iconic bird of our eastern 
forests, which is famous for its flutelike, ethereal song, and it is 
the official bird of Washington DC. Sadly, these songs are fading from 
our forests, as this species has declined by more than 60% since 1970. 
It has been identified as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need in 29 
states, including Florida, Virginia, Arkansas, West Virginia, and more. 
NMBCA projects have helped to conserve its nesting habitat in the 
Appalachian Mountains of West Virginia, as well as its wintering 
habitat in places like Guatemala.
    There, funding has helped to empower young women of the Maya 
highlands to help sustainably manage natural resources and forest 
habitat in their communities, while securing vital wintering areas for 
Wood Thrush and other migratory and resident birds. In doing so, this 
funding also helps our states achieve their bird conservation goals 
through the State Wildlife Action Plans by helping to advance their 
recovery and reinforce state investments.
    Similarly, the Cerulean Warbler, a stunning blue-and-white songbird 
beloved by birders, has declined by more than 70% since the 1970s, and 
has been identified as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need by 35 
states, including Florida. The NMBCA has supported conservation of its 
nesting habitat, such as the aforementioned West Virginia project, 
along with efforts in Ohio, Iowa, and Canada, and vital projects in its 
wintering habitat in Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, and more. This includes 
efforts to not only conserve key habitat, but also work with landowners 
on projects such as bird-friendly coffee production.
    Despite the important and effective investments in the NMBCA, there 
has been more demand for the grants than the program can currently 
meet. As of 2021, less than one-third of all proposals have been able 
to receive funding, leaving more than 1,800 projects unable to be 
supported and implemented.
    And to help meet the needs of the birds that are vanishing before 
our eyes, more resources are urgently needed for bird conservation on 
the ground, and in the places of greatest need. NMBCA projects help 
proactively invest in these species, which reduces the need for listing 
under the Endangered Species Act.
    Many of the species this program benefits are facing long-term 
declines, and could be considered for ESA listings without further 
investments.
    Audubon supports H.R. 4389, the Migratory Birds of the Americas 
Conservation Enhancements Act, because it will address several current 
needs and opportunities for migratory birds and for the NMBCA program. 
First, the legislation will reauthorize the program, which is an 
important and timely step as the five-year authorization ran through 
Fiscal Year 2023. Second, the legislation will help grow the authorized 
funding over time, which will help provide additional resources to meet 
the overwhelming interest in the program.
    Third, the legislation will address a significant current barrier 
to participation in the program and improve its accessibility by 
amending the matching requirement. The current 3:1 match has been 
identified as an obstacle for partners to apply for grants, especially 
for smaller organizations that do not have access to large funding 
resources. By amending the statutory requirement to a 2:1 match, more 
partners will be able to come to the table, while bringing it closer in 
line with similar conservation grant programs. Additionally, this does 
not limit partners from bringing more funding to the table than would 
be required under the legislation.
    Fourth, the legislation will support greater capacity for managing 
the program, by increasing the ceiling for administration. Current 
levels under the 3% ceiling are insufficient to support full-time staff 
capacity to implement the program, and the legislation will help 
provide greater support for management by raising it to 4%.
    Now is the time to reauthorize and enhance the NMBCA program, and 
the Migratory Birds of the Americas legislation will take key steps to 
achieve these important and necessary goals. We are grateful for the 
leadership of Representatives Salazar, Larsen, Joyce, and Peltola for 
introducing this bipartisan legislation, and for the bill's co-
sponsors, as well as to Chairman Bentz and Ranking Member Huffman for 
holding this hearing on this vital legislation. We look forward to 
assisting the committee, and we encourage the advancement of this bill 
to support America's migratory birds, so that our communities will 
continue to enjoy the economic and quality of life benefits of having 
these birds among us.
    Thank you, and I would look forward to any questions you may have.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
    I now recognize Dr. Colden for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF ALLISON COLDEN, MARYLAND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 
         CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION, ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND

    Dr. Colden. Thank you, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member 
Huffman, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for 
inviting me here to testify today on behalf of the Chesapeake 
Bay Foundation and our more than 300,000 members in support of 
H.R. 4770, the Chesapeake Bay Science, Education, and Ecosystem 
Enhancement Act, or SEEE Act.
    I would also like to take a moment before I start and 
recognize Mr. Wittman and thank him for his support of this 
important legislation.
    For more than half a century, CBF has led a landmark effort 
to save the Chesapeake Bay, a national treasure on which more 
than 18 million people and more than 3,600 species of plants 
and animals depend. Our watershed spans from the headwater 
streams of Cooperstown, New York to the confluence of the 
Atlantic Ocean in Virginia Beach, Virginia, and westward to the 
Allegheny Mountains. We are the largest estuary in the nation 
and the third largest estuary in the world.
    More importantly, the Chesapeake Bay is a vital economic 
engine for our region and for our nation. Setting aside 
recreation, cultural, and tourism industries, the commercial 
and recreational fisheries alone supported more than $7 billion 
in sales, nearly $2 billion in income, and supported more than 
60,000 jobs in 2020, according to NOAA's latest reports.
    For more than 40 years, Federal, state, and local 
governments, alongside non-profit partners and businesses have 
worked to restore the Chesapeake Bay's habitats, enhance their 
ecosystem function, and reduce pollution. And it is because of 
this broad partnership that so much work has been done to date. 
However, there is still much work to be done.
    To achieve meaningful and lasting restoration, as well as 
accelerate the pace of our progress, we need all of our Federal 
partners at the table, and that is why I sit before you today. 
The reauthorization of the NOAA's Chesapeake Bay Office, or 
NCBO, an authorization of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 
Education and Training Program, or B-WET, could not come at a 
more critical time.
    The SEEE Act would reauthorize NCBO and strengthen their 
ability to lead cutting-edge science to restore the Bay and 
support our watersheds vital fisheries. Through research, 
technical assistance, coordination, monitoring, and 
restoration, NCBO provides the important insights for improving 
the Bay ecosystem and supporting our coastal economies.
    One area where NCBO's leadership really shines is large-
scale oyster restoration. Over the past decade, with NOAA's 
coordination and leadership, NCBO has led more than 1,300 acres 
of oyster reef restoration and led the planting of more than 10 
billion juvenile oysters in the Chesapeake Bay. This equates to 
more than 1,000 football fields' worth of healthy habitat, 
water filtration, and enhanced fishing opportunities. NCBO led 
the development of the large-scale oyster restoration approach, 
helped design our success metrics, has supported oyster 
hatchery production and the ongoing comprehensive monitoring of 
these projects. Because of this leadership and support, the 
Chesapeake Bay has become a global model. And without NCBO, 
projects of this scale, complexity, and level of success simply 
would not be possible.
    NCBO is also on the front lines of advancing our 
understanding of impacts to the Chesapeake Bay from a changing 
climate through its vast ocean observing network which includes 
buoys that track oceanographic conditions, telemetry arrays 
that monitor fish movement, and water quality sensors 
monitoring key environmental parameters. These insights are 
critical to our understanding of the impacts of climate change 
on the Bay, and for providing timely management relevant 
information to decision makers.
    The SEEE Act would also authorize the B-WET program, which 
offers students and teachers the opportunity to learn about the 
scientific value and wonder of the Chesapeake Bay firsthand. As 
the Federal lead for K-12 education in the Chesapeake Bay 
Program Partnership, NCBO implements the B-WET program 
providing the tools, resources, and funding necessary to ensure 
the next generation of Bay stewards have a comprehensive 
understanding of our complex watershed.
    Since its inception more than two decades ago, the B-WET 
program has supported more than 700,000 students and more than 
25,000 teachers through high-quality, meaningful watershed 
education experiences. Since 2002, NOAA has awarded more than 
$48 million to nearly 300 projects in the Chesapeake Bay 
watershed alone.
    At this critical time, we encourage this Committee to 
promote the swift passage of H.R. 4770 to ensure NCBO has the 
necessary financial stability to continue its vital role in 
restoring the Bay's waterways, fisheries, and wildlife.
    Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you again for the opportunity to testify, 
and I look forward to hearing your questions. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Dr. Colden follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Allison Colden, Ph.D., Maryland Executive 
                  Director, Chesapeake Bay Foundation
                              on H.R. 4770

    Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today on behalf of 
the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) and its over 300,000 members in 
support of H.R. 4770--Chesapeake Bay Science, Education, and Ecosystem 
Enhancement Act (SEEE Act).
    For more than half a century, CBF has led a landmark effort to save 
the Chesapeake Bay--a national treasure on which the health and 
wellbeing of over 18 million people \1\ and 3,600 species of plants and 
animals depend.\2\ The watershed spans 64,000 square miles from 
Cooperstown, New York to Virginia Beach, Virginia and westward to the 
Allegheny Mountains. In total, it encompasses six states--Delaware, 
Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia--and the 
District of Columbia.\3\ There are 11,684 miles of shoreline and 
includes 150 major rivers and streams in the watershed.\4\ It is our 
nation's largest estuary and the third largest estuary in the world.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Chesapeake Bay Program 
(CBF), What is a Watershed?, https://www.chesapeakebay.net/discover/
watershed.
    \2\ The flora and fauna in the watershed including in this number 
are 348 species of finfish, 173 species of shellfish, over 2,700 plant 
species and more than 16 species of underwater grasses. Additionally, 
the 87 species of waterbirds rely on the Bay. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Chesapeake WILD, www.fws.gov/program/chesapeake-wild#.
    \3\ EPA CBP, What is a Watershed?, supra note 1.
    \4\ Id.
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Bay is a vital economic engine for the region and for the 
nation. According to NOAA's latest report, in 2020 the commercial 
seafood industry in Maryland and Virginia brought nearly $6.7 billion 
in sales, over $1.6 billion in income, and nearly 46,000 jobs to the 
region.\6\ Recreational fishing in Maryland and Virginia in 2020 
supported over 16,000 jobs, nearly $725 million in sales, and nearly 
$268 million in income.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ National Marine Fisheries Service. 2022. Fisheries Economics of 
the United States, 2020. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-
F/SPO-236A, p.110, available at https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2023-
09/FEUS-2020-final2-web-0.pdf.
    \7\ Id. at 111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For more than 40 years, federal, state, and local governments 
alongside non-profit partners and businesses have worked together to 
reduce pollution, restore habitat, and enhance ecosystem function in 
the Chesapeake Bay. It is thanks to this broad partnership that we have 
made great strides toward restoration. In 2025, Chesapeake Bay 
restoration efforts will face a key deadline for implementation of best 
management practices and achievement of Bay Watershed Agreement 
restoration goals, but there is still much work to be done. In order to 
be successful and to accelerate the pace of progress, we will need the 
strong support of all federal partners in the Chesapeake Bay clean-up. 
Thus, the reauthorization of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration Chesapeake Bay Office (NCBO) and authorization of the 
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Education and Training (B-WET) program, could 
not come at a more critical time.
H.R. 4770--Chesapeake Bay Science, Education, and Ecosystem Enhancement 
        Act (SEEE Act)

    The SEEE Act would reauthorize the NCBO and strengthen the Office's 
ability to deliver cutting-edge science to help restore the Bay and 
support the watershed's oyster, blue crab, striped bass, and other 
ecologically and economically valuable fisheries. Through research, 
technical assistance, coordination, long-term monitoring, and habitat 
restoration, NCBO provides important insights for improving the Bay's 
ecosystem and supporting coastal communities. Through its leadership 
role in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Bay Program's Goal 
Implementation Teams, the NCBO is responsible for the stewardship of 
our fisheries and coastal habitats and ensuring the estuary and the 
species that depend on it have a healthy future for many years to 
come.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ See, e.g., EPA CBP, Maintain Healthy Watersheds Goal 
Implementation Team, https://www.chesapeakebay.net/who/group/
maintaining_healthy_watersheds_goal_implementation_ team.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large-scale Oyster Restoration
    The Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) is a keystone species in 
Chesapeake Bay, responsible for building complex, three-dimensional 
reefs which provide critical nursery habitat for more than 350 species 
and filtering sediment and nutrients from the water, improving water 
quality and clarity. Oyster reefs, once a dominant feature of the Bay's 
shallows are essential habitat for important fish species like black 
sea bass, red drum, summer flounder, and spotted sea trout. Many 
recreational fishers value these reef habitats for the abundance and 
diversity of fish communities they support.
    As a result of historical overharvesting, pollution, and disease, 
the Bay's native oyster population is at a fraction of historic levels. 
Large-scale restoration projects provide the best chance for reversing 
the population decline and safeguarding the vital services oysters 
provide. These projects create reef habitat for oysters to grow, 
reproduce and contribute larvae to additional reef areas in the Bay. 
They also build functioning reef systems that work collectively to 
improve the Bay's water quality and biodiversity.
    In 2009, the Executive Order on Chesapeake Bay Protection and 
Restoration acknowledged the economic, social, and cultural value of 
the Chesapeake Bay to the nation as a whole and created a Federal 
Leadership Committee including EPA and NOAA, charged with developing 
priority strategies to restore the health and natural resources of the 
Chesapeake Bay.\9\ It was through this committee that the concept of 
large-scale oyster restoration was born.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Exec. Order No. 13508, 75 Fed. Reg. 23,099 (May 15, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In June 2014, representatives from the entire watershed signed the 
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement.\10\ For the first time, Delaware, 
New York, and West Virginia committed to full partnership in the Bay 
Program. The agreement includes the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint 
goals for 2017 and 2025, but also established additional conservation 
goals, such as goals for habitat restoration and conservation, 
improving fisheries, increasing public access public access, and 
environmental literacy. This Agreement included a commitment to large-
scale oyster restoration in ten tributaries by 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ EPA CBP, Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, https://
www.chesapeakebay.net/what/what_guides_us/watershed_agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This outcome, to complete oyster restoration in ten tributaries, is 
currently on track to be completed by 2025 and is widely recognized as 
the largest oyster restoration project in the world, thanks in no small 
part to the contributions of the NCBO.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ All of the outcomes under NOAA leadership are on track to meet 
their commitments making it clear that NOAA plays an invaluable role in 
ensuring that the partnership is making progress to restoring the Bay. 
EPA, Charting a Course to 2025: A Report and Recommendations for the 
Chesapeake Executive Council on How to Best Address and Integrate New 
Science and Restoration Strategies Leading up to 2025, at 25 (July 21, 
2023), available at https://d18lev1ok5leia.cloudfront.net/
chesapeakebay/documents/Charting-a-Course-to-2025_CBP_2023-07-26-
001306_jvtn.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NCBO provides critical leadership and financial support to 
Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration efforts. They led the development of 
the restoration approach, the definition of success metrics, and the 
ongoing comprehensive monitoring of restoration projects. Each year, 
NCBO contributes funding to support production of oyster spat-on-shell, 
a key restoration product used to seed newly-constructed reefs. In 
2023, a record 1.7 billion oyster spat were planted in Maryland alone, 
with nearly 1 billion planted on large-scale restoration projects 
alone.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ See Governor Moore Announces New Annual Record for Chesapeake 
Bay Oyster Planting, (Oct. 10, 2023), https://governor.maryland.gov/
news/press/pages/governor-moore-announces-new-annual-record-for-
chesapeake-bay-oyster-planting.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NCBO scientists conduct habitat assessments to understand baseline 
conditions before and after oyster restoration projects, providing 
critical knowledge to resource managers who work to ensure long-term 
success of these restoration efforts. The data and information that the 
NCBO collects helps other resource managers across the globe shape 
their own restoration projects based on lessons learned here in the 
Bay.
    Over the past decade, with NOAA's coordination and leadership, more 
than 1,300 acres of oyster reefs have been restored and more than 10 
billion juvenile oysters have been planted in Chesapeake Bay. NOAA 
equates these numbers to ``1,055 football fields'' of healthy habitat, 
natural water filtration, and enhanced fishing opportunities for 
people.\13\ Additionally, NOAA has recently released a draft 
restoration goal defines steps to build on and improve the next phase 
of large-scale oyster restoration following the completion of the ten 
tributaries restoration in 2025.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ 2022 Chesapeake Bay Oyster Restoration Update, https://
d18lev1ok5leia.cloudfront.net/chesapeakebay/documents/2022-Chesapeake-
Bay-Oyster-Restoration-Update.pdf
    \14\ Chesapeake Progress, Oysters, https://
www.chesapeakeprogress.com/abundant-life/oysters (the ten tributaries 
are Harris Creek, the Little Choptank, Tred Avon, upper St. Mary's and 
Manokin rivers in Maryland, and the Great Wicomico, Lafayette, Lower 
York, Lynnhaven and Piankatank rivers in Virginia).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Monitoring indicates that these restoration projects are showing 
great promise, with most reefs meeting the success criteria to be 
considered fully restored. A NCBO-led comprehensive research program 
indicates that restoration is also paying dividends to the Chesapeake 
Bay ecosystem. Restored reefs are estimated to removed seven times as 
much nitrogen from the water each day than unrestored areas, reducing 
excess nutrients that fuel low-oxygen `dead zones.' Productivity of 
important prey species for fish, including worms, grass shrimp, mud 
crabs, and others, can exceed 5,000 individuals per square meter, and 
survival of juvenile blue crabs is three times higher on reefs than in 
unrestored areas. These ecosystem benefits have tangible advantages for 
coastal communities as well. Once mature, oyster reefs in the Choptank 
River system in Maryland are expected to increase fishery landings and 
revenue by $23 million annually and support an additional 300 jobs in 
coastal counties that are heavily dependent on the seafood industry.
    Without NCBO's technical expertise, coordination, monitoring, and 
support, projects of this scale, complexity, and level of success would 
simply not be possible. The SEEE Act supports and allows the NCBO to 
expand its restoration efforts.
Ocean Monitoring and a Changing Climate
    Across the Chesapeake Bay, the NCBO manages a vast ocean observing 
network, including observation buoys that track meteorological and 
oceanographic parameters, telemetry arrays that monitor fish movement, 
and water quality sensors that monitor ecosystem conditions. For 
example, the Chesapeake Bay Interpretive Buoy System (CBIBS) \15\ 
provides weather and environmental information such as wind speed, 
temperature, and wave height, updated every six minutes. The data 
provided by CBIBS is available online, via mobile app, or by phone 
call, allowing boaters and anglers to access real-time data to plan 
their trips and be safe on the water. Data from the buoys are combined 
with satellite data to track harmful algal blooms, monitor sediment 
plumes, measure oxygen levels important to fish throughout the year, 
and forecast the distribution and severity of dangerous bacteria--
information critical to oyster aquaculture operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ NOAA, Chesapeake Bay Interpretive Buoy System, https://
buoybay.noaa.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, NCBO is on the front lines of advancing our 
understanding of how a changing climate will impact the Chesapeake Bay, 
particularly fish species and the habitats they depend on. NCBO has 
brought together experts from across the watershed and beyond to 
understand how rising water temperatures, low oxygen `dead zones', and 
habitat availability will change over time, and the impacts that will 
have on commercial and recreational fisheries. NCBO staff recently co-
authored a seminal report on the impacts of rising water temperatures 
on Chesapeake Bay, including key fish habitat like underwater 
grasses.\16\ Ongoing work will quantify the availability of habitat for 
species like striped bass, summer flounder, and black sea bass. 
Researchers are also working to identify the environmental drivers that 
determine the productivity of forage fish species like Atlantic 
menhaden, which serve as primary prey for the Bay's top predators. 
These insights are critical to understanding the challenges that a 
changing climate presents for the Bay and providing timely, management-
relevant information for resource agencies and decisionmakers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Batiuk, R., Brownson, K., Dennison, W., et al. 2023. Rising 
Watershed and Bay Water Temperatures: Ecological Implications and 
Management Responses--A STAC Workshop. STAC Publication Number 23-001. 
Edgewater, MD. (505 pages), available at https://www.chesapeake.org/
stac/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/STAC-Report_-Rising-Temps.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The ability to address the complex challenges of rising water 
temperatures, low oxygen `dead zones', and habitat availability have on 
our watershed demands scientific expertise and adequate funding. As the 
federal lead for the climate resiliency goal team, the NCBO is equipped 
to continue leading climate resilience and adaptation work in the 
watershed. However, to stand up to the challenges a changing climate 
poses and position the next generation of Bay stewards for success, 
deeper investments must be made in this vital work. The SEEE Act 
expands the NCBO ocean monitoring efforts, which will provide the 
necessary data to implement science-based decision making across the 
watershed.
Environmental Education
    Additionally, the SEEE Act would authorize the B-WET program which 
offers students and teachers the opportunity to learn about the 
scientific value and wonder of the Bay ecosystem firsthand. The NCBO is 
the federal lead for K-12 education in the Chesapeake Bay Program 
partnership providing the tools, resources, and funding necessary to 
ensure the next generation of Bay stewards have a comprehensive 
understanding of our complex watershed.
    Throughout the watershed, students, teachers, and experts team up 
year-round to learn about the Chesapeake's diverse habitats through 
hands-on learning. Students engage in defining local issues, 
participate in field investigations, learn to synthesize information 
and draw conclusions, and develop action-oriented projects. This 
learning, known as Meaningful Watershed Educational Experiences (MWEE) 
\17\, is a cornerstone of environmental education, and enables student 
learning in the context of life-relevant, real-world problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ NOAA, Bay Watershed Education and Training, https://
www.noaa.gov/office-education/bwet; see also CBF, Meaningful Watershed 
Educational Experiences, https://www.cbf.org/join-us/education-program/
mwee/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NCBO implements the B-WET program, which delivers grant funding 
across the watershed for dozens of environmental literacy programs, 
educating tens of thousands of students, and providing professional 
development for hundreds of teachers. B-WET helps equip educators with 
the skills, knowledge, and confidence to effectively teach students 
about the watershed, ensuring the next generation of bay stewards are 
environmentally literate. For instance, in Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 NOAA 
awarded funding to CBF to assist in bringing together teachers and 
community members to build and maintain successful MWEEs in four 
counties in Pennsylvania.\18\ This program will help ensure that 
educators receive the tools needed to effectively develop and teach an 
environmental education curriculum in addition to ensuring that the 
community supports and participates in getting students out into 
nature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ NOAA, Past and Current Chesapeake B-WET Projects, 
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/chesapeake-bay/past-
and-current-chesapeake-b-wet-projects#pennsylvania.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, NCBO helps states across the watershed organize. It 
connects state departments of education with their natural resource 
agencies, focusing on key opportunities to benefit students and share 
innovative ideas (such as MWEEs) between states.
    NCBO also runs the Environmental Science and Training Center, 
providing educators the knowledge and tools they need to deliver up-to-
date science information to the next generation. Through workshops at 
NOAA's Oxford Lab and throughout the watershed with partner 
organizations, teachers learn how to apply science with students in the 
classroom and in the field.
    Since its inception two decades ago, Chesapeake B-WET has evolved 
from funding projects in individual schools to supporting school 
districts and state-wide environmental literacy efforts. It has 
directly reached more than 730,000 students and nearly 30,000 
professional development opportunities in the Chesapeake Bay 
watershed.\19\ Since 2002, NOAA has awarded more than $117 million to 
929 B-WET projects \20\ with over $51 million to support more than 275 
B-WET projects in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ EPA CBP, 40 years of Educating Chesapeake Bay Stewards, (Sept. 
22, 2023), https://www.chesapeakebay.net/news/blog/40-years-of-
educating-chesapeake-bay-stewards.
    \20\ NOAA, Bay Watershed Education and Training, supra note 17.
    \21\ Pers. Comm. with NOAA (Oct. 13, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The SEEE Act would authorize the B-WET program, providing more 
students with the opportunity to learn first-hand about the importance 
of protecting and restoring the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Funding for NCBO
    The SEEE Act would provide necessary financial stability to the 
NCBO for FY 2024 through FY 2027. To effectively implement its 
Strategic Plan,\22\ the NCBO needs reassurances it will have consistent 
funding. As highlighted above, and one example of how sustained funding 
is necessary to meet NCBO's goals, the ten oyster restoration projects 
that NCBO is working on will require additional monitoring and 
evaluation past 2025 in three-to-six-year intervals.\23\ In order to 
ensure that these long-term restoration projects are completed and the 
agency has the ability to collect the necessary data to determine the 
water-quality benefits, reassurances that funding will be available is 
needed. Additionally, efficiencies can be derived from sustained 
funding for monitoring and restoration by reducing uncertainty and 
associated mobilization costs, making federal investments more cost-
effective over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ NCBO 2020-2025 Strategic Plan, https://
repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/28762/noaa_28762_DS1.pdf; see 
also NCBO Biennial Report to Congress Fiscal Years 2019 and 2020, 
https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2021-04/NCBO%2019-
20%20Biennial%20Report%20to%20 Congress%20FINAL.pdf?null.
    \23\ Chesapeake Progress, Oysters, supra note 14 (``Monitoring and 
evaluation will take place at three- and six-year intervals following 
construction and seeding. This monitoring and evaluation phase will not 
be complete until after 2025.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion

    Restoring the Chesapeake Bay has always been a bipartisan effort. 
At this critical time for the Bay cleanup effort, we encourage this 
committee to promote swift passage of H.R. 4770 to ensure that NCBO 
continues to play a vital role in restoring the health of the Bay--its 
waterways, fisheries, and wildlife habitats, meeting the 2025 
restoration requirements and helping to lead the next chapter of 
restoration efforts in Chesapeake Bay.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Dr. Colden.
    I now recognize Mr. Caccese for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF ROBERT T. CACCESE, DIRECTOR OF POLICY, PLANNING, 
  AND COMMUNICATIONS, PENNSYLVANIA FISH AND BOAT COMMISSION, 
                    HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA

    Mr. Caccese. Good morning, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member 
Huffman, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the 
opportunity to testify. I am Bob Caccese, Director of Policy, 
Planning, and Communications for the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat 
Commission.
    Today, I am representing the Association of Fish and 
Wildlife Agencies. Our mission is to protect the authorities of 
our member agencies and enhance their abilities to manage fish 
and wildlife as public trust resources for current and future 
generations. All 50 states are members, as well as the U.S. 
Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia.
    My testimony focuses on H.R. 5009, the Wildlife Innovation 
and Longevity Driver Reauthorization Act, or WILD Act, but I 
wanted to mention that the Association also supports H.R. 4389, 
the Migratory Birds of the Americas Conservation Enhancements 
Act, as well. Both are important programs that deliver tangible 
conservation outcomes.
    I would like to thank Congressman Joyce and Congresswoman 
Dingell for introducing the WILD Act. This bipartisan 
legislation would reauthorize critical U.S. fish and wildlife 
conservation programs. Specifically, it would reauthorize the 
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, which enables wildlife 
and habitat conservation in all 50 states and territories, and 
the Multinational Species Conservation Funds, which help 
conserve some of the world's most iconic species, including 
rhinos, elephants, tigers, great apes, and turtles.
    While the Association supports the bill in its entirety, I 
will focus my testimony on the Partners for Fish and Wildlife 
Program (Partners Program), as that is where my expertise is 
most applicable.
    H.R. 5009 reauthorizes the Partners Program through Fiscal 
Year 2028, and its enactment is a critical priority of the 
Association, as the program is set to expire this year.
    Since its inception in 1987, the Partners Program has 
enabled restoration of more than 6 million acres of habitat by 
bringing together state, Federal, tribal, and private partners. 
Last year alone, the program aided completion of more than 
1,800 projects and leveraged every Federal dollar spent on 
projects with almost $4 in partner contributions.
    In Pennsylvania, the Partners Program assisted in 
restoration of Cooper's Run, a trout fishery upstream of the 
Susquehanna River in the Chesapeake Bay. Like many successful 
conservation efforts, it was private landowners who initiated 
this project with designs and permitting provided by Partners 
for Fish and Wildlife staff. The work of the Partners Program 
enabled NGOs and the Fish and Boat Commission to restore 14 
stream and river miles, increasing habitat for trout, songbird, 
waterfowl, and threatened turtles. Land and business owners 
will see tangible economic benefits as well, thanks to reduced 
flooding and improved water quality. Ultimately, this project 
reduced sediment by approximately 214 tons per year.
    Other highlights of the program in Pennsylvania include 
stream restoration projects, enhancing our world-class Spring 
Creek fishery, increasing the amount and quality of habitat, 
and providing greater access for angling and recreation. The 
program also supports implementation of our state Wildlife 
Action Plan, like in Lancaster County, where we introduced the 
Chesapeake logperch, a species of greatest conservation need 
that we are actively working to keep from becoming endangered.
    The Partners Program works with our Game Commission as 
well, creating hundreds of acres of habitat for American 
woodcock, and assisting with critical telemetry data on 
migration routes and breeding habitat. They are also working 
together to keep the Allegheny woodrat off the endangered 
species list by installing nesting structures and conducting 
ongoing scientific studies on colonization of the use of 
artificial structures. This type of scientific support provided 
by the program helps state agencies maximize the impact of our 
conservation efforts and ensure the American taxpayer the best 
possible return for their investment in our public trust 
resources.
    Other examples from across the country include Partners' 
work at River Bend West in Michigan last year, where $73,000 in 
project investment from the program was leveraged with $1 
million in partner contributions to restore one of the few 
undeveloped sites in the Saginaw River. Mitigation of 
contaminated soils, eradication of invasive species, extensive 
planting of native species, and restoration of natural features 
for herpetofauna, mammals, waterfowl, and other migratory 
birds, and the benefits extend to people, too. Projects like 
Riverbend West that provide targeted restoration within city 
limits ensure that the benefits of nature are more equitable 
and accessible for all members of the public to enjoy.
    Now just a few moments on H.R. 4389. With its enactment in 
2002, the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act 
established one of the most cost-effective and impactful 
conservation programs for addressing the needs of migratory 
birds. And again, as I mentioned, the Association supports that 
bill.
    In closing, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 
strongly supports passage of H.R. 5009, which delivers common-
sense, community-centered conservation that helps restore 
habitats and endangered wildlife, lifts up economies, and makes 
communities more secure.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I welcome 
your questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Caccese follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Robert T. Caccese, Director of Policy, Planning 
       and Communications, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission
        Representing the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies
                       on H.R. 5009 and H.R. 4389

    Good morning, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and members 
of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
    I am Bob Caccese, Director of Policy, Planning and Communications 
for the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. Today I am representing 
the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (Association). Our 
mission is to protect the authorities of our member agencies and 
enhance their abilities to manage fish and wildlife as public trust 
resources for current and future generations. All 50 states are members 
as well as the U.S. Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia.
    My testimony focuses on H.R. 5009, the Wildlife Innovation and 
Longevity Driver Reauthorization Act, or WILD Act, but I wanted to 
mention that the Association also supports H.R. 4389, the Migratory 
Birds of the Americas Conservation Enhancements Act as well. Both are 
important programs that deliver tangible conservation outcomes.
H.R. 5009, ``WILD Act''

    I would like to thank Congressman Dave Joyce and Congresswoman 
Debbie Dingell for introducing the WILD Act. This bipartisan 
legislation would reauthorize critical U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
conservation programs. Specifically, it would reauthorize the Partners 
for Fish and Wildlife Program, which enables wildlife and habitat 
conservation in all 50 states and territories, and the Multinational 
Species Conservation Funds, which help conserve some of the world's 
most iconic species, including rhinos, elephants, tigers, great apes, 
and turtles.
    While the Association supports the bill in its entirety, I will 
focus my testimony on the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program 
(Partners Program) as that is where my expertise is most applicable. 
H.R. 5009 reauthorizes the Partners Program through fiscal year 2028 
and its enactment is a critical priority of the Association as the 
program is set to expire this year.
    Since its inception in 1987, the Partners Program has enabled 
restoration of more than six million acres of habitat by bringing 
together state, federal, tribal, and private partners. Last year alone, 
the program aided completion of more than 1800 projects and leveraged 
every federal dollar spent on projects with almost 4 dollars in partner 
contributions.
    In Pennsylvania, the Partners Program assisted in restoration of 
Cooper's Run, a trout fishery upstream of the Susquehanna River and the 
Chesapeake Bay. Like many successful conservation efforts, it was 
private landowners who initiated this project, with designs and 
permitting provided by Partners for Fish and Wildlife staff.
    The work of the Partners Program enabled NGOs and the Pennsylvania 
Fish and Boat Commission to restore 14 stream and river miles, 
increasing habitat for trout, songbird, waterfowl, and threatened 
turtles.
    Land and business owners will see tangible economic benefits as 
well thanks to reduced flooding and improved water quality. Ultimately, 
this project reduced sediment by approximately 214 tons per year.
    Other highlights of the Partners Program in Pennsylvania include 
stream restoration projects enhancing our world class Spring Creek 
fishery, increasing the amount and quality of habitat, and providing 
greater access for angling and recreation. The program also supports 
implementation of our State Wildlife Action Plan, such as in Lancaster 
County, where we reintroduced the Chesapeake logperch, a Species of 
Greatest Conservation Need that we are actively working to keep from 
becoming endangered.
    The Partners Program works with our Game Commission as well, 
creating hundreds of acres of habitat for American Woodcock and 
assisting with critical telemetry data on migration routes and breeding 
habitat. They are also working together to keep the Allegheny woodrat 
off the endangered species list by installing nesting structures and 
conducting ongoing scientific studies on colonization and the use of 
artificial structures.
    This type of scientific support provided by the program helps state 
agencies maximize the impact of our conservation efforts and ensure the 
American taxpayer the best possible return for their investment in our 
public trust resources.
    Other examples from across the country include partners' work at 
Riverbend West in Michigan last year, where $73,000 in project 
investment from the program was leveraged with $1 million in partner 
contributions to restore one of the few undeveloped riparian sites on 
the Saginaw River.
    Mitigation of contaminated soils, eradication of invasive species, 
extensive planting of native species, and restoration of natural 
features significantly enhanced upland and wetland habitats for small 
mammals, herpetofauna, deer, waterfowl, and other migratory birds, but 
the benefits extend to people too. Projects like Riverbend West that 
provide targeted restoration within city limits ensure that the 
benefits of nature are more equitable and accessible for all members of 
the public to enjoy.
H.R. 4389, ``Migratory Birds of the Americas Conservation Enhancements 
        Act''

    Now, just a few comments on H.R. 4389. With its enactment in 2002, 
the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act established one of the 
most cost-effective and impactful conservation programs for addressing 
the needs of migratory birds.
    Although only a portion of the funding provided through the Act is 
applied to projects within the United States, the Association supports 
this bill because of the tangible positive impacts to bird species 
breeding within our states, many of which are Species of Greatest 
Conservation Need, and which spend the remainder of the year 
distributed throughout Latin America and Caribbean.
    Absent a dedicated effort to support conservation projects in these 
areas, Neotropical migratory birds will continue to decline as they 
have been for the past fifty years despite the careful management by 
our state wildlife agencies. This bill will enable more on-the-ground 
conservation actions where it will benefit bird populations the most 
and continue to demonstrate the collaborative, multi-national approach 
necessary to be effective in the management of these species.
Conclusion

    In closing, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies strongly 
supports passage of H.R. 5009, which delivers commonsense, community-
centered conservation that helps restore habitats and endangered 
wildlife, lifts up economies, and makes communities more secure. We 
also support H.R. 4389. Once again, thank you to Chairman Bentz, 
Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the Committee for the 
opportunity to testify. I am glad to answer any questions you have or 
follow up with more information as needed.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. I thank the witnesses for their 
testimony, and we will now recognize Members for 5 minutes each 
for questions.
    Mr. Wittman, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Dr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank 
our witnesses for joining us today.
    Ms. Selberg Robinson, I want to start with you. Can you 
give us your perspective on what has happened with the 
Chesapeake Bay in the past two decades, as far as restoration 
efforts, where we are today with our resources such as oysters, 
and also where we are with water quality?
    And can you talk about the role that the Chesapeake Bay 
Program Office plays as far as coordinating the efforts of each 
state and, obviously, the requirements under the Federal Clean 
Water Act like TMDLs, where everybody has to look at what they 
are doing to improve water quality?
    Ms. Robinson. [Audio malfunction.] To meeting that goal, 
and the scale of this work is really unprecedented. As you have 
heard this morning, this has become the world's largest oyster 
restoration project in the world, and it has resulted in more 
than 1,400 acres of healthy, restored reefs.
    So, how do we know that they are healthy? We know that they 
are healthy because we monitor them. We are looking for key 
things like density and biomass to make sure that they are a 
functioning reef. And a functioning reef really contributes to 
both the ecology and the economy of the Chesapeake Bay. We are 
really pleased with the progress we are making with oyster 
restoration and the role that it plays to support our 
commercial or recreational fisheries like blue crab in each 
state.
    We lead work groups that bring all of the states together 
and our NGO partners to have important conversations about 
fisheries research, oyster restoration.
    Our office does not have a lead role in the TMDL effort. 
That is led by our colleagues over at the EPA.
    Dr. Wittman. Thank you, Ms. Selberg Robinson.
    Dr. Colden, I want to get your perspective on oyster 
restoration, how you see it. Obviously, the overall numbers are 
very impressive, but if you could give us a little drill-down 
on what that has involved. In other words, when you have reef 
restoration, is it a combination of aquaculture, is a 
combination of private interest on the Bay that do spat on 
shell culture, all of those different things? Can you give us 
an overall view about how that is unfolding?
    Dr. Colden. Absolutely, and thank you for the question.
    Oyster restoration that NCBO leads is a tremendous effort 
that involves states as well as local non-profits, private and 
public oyster hatcheries, which are producing the oyster larvae 
necessary for these projects, as well as supporting local 
watermen who are participating in placing spat on shell, who 
are participating in the restoration activities themselves.
    More recently as well, oyster aquaculture was approved as a 
best management practice for reducing nitrogen, and oyster 
restoration has been approved as of last week. So, not only are 
these industries contributing to the recovery of oyster 
populations, they are also helping us achieve our pollution 
reduction goals through bioextraction through harvest, and 
enhanced denitrification, which removes excess nitrogen from 
the water.
    Dr. Wittman. You talked a little bit about the role that 
the oysters play as filter feeders. Can you give us a little 
perspective on what they do in taking food that is algae out 
that can, for an overpopulation, create some problems for the 
Bay, but also what they do in removing sediment?
    We know there is a function that they remove sediment that 
is not food, and are able to take that out of the water column.
    Dr. Colden. Yes, absolutely. They also improve the water's 
clarity. As sediment enters the Chesapeake Bay it clouds the 
water, making it difficult for things like underwater grasses 
to thrive. By filtering out that sediment and packaging up into 
small packages, it makes it sink to the Bay bottom faster, 
making the water clearer and allowing those other habitats like 
underwater grasses, which are incredibly important for things 
like blue crabs, allowing that water clarity to improve, allow 
the sunlight to reach down to the bottom, and improve the 
overall water clarity conditions.
    Dr. Wittman. So, large-scale oyster restoration is really 
Mother Nature's filter in taking a lot of stuff out of the Bay 
that otherwise would take years and years to do, they can do it 
in days?
    Dr. Colden. Yes, absolutely.
    Dr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes Mrs. Peltola.
    Mrs. Peltola. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all 
the folks who are here to testify on these really good pieces 
of legislation today.
    My first question is for Ms. Wraithmell. I represent 
Alaska, and we have about 470 birds that call Alaska home. And 
most of these are migratory birds, and their range extends 
thousands of miles. And these international corridors that 
these migratory birds traverse, thousands of miles, I think 
that all these species really benefit from the international 
conservation projects that we have agreements with Canada and 
Mexico on. And I was just wondering if you could elaborate on 
how H.R. 4389 is making grants more accessible to more diverse 
applicants because of the increased Federal cost share.
    Ms. Wraithmell. Absolutely. Alaska has many species that 
spend lots of time in Latin America, whether it is blackpoll 
warblers that are traveling all the way to Brazil or Hudsonian 
godwits that are wintering in Chile. So, we recognize that we 
need to have investments in all of the parts of their range, 
not just in those that are in Alaska.
    By looking at the matching requirements that are a part of 
the grant, we can make sure that we are lowering the barrier of 
entry for some of these projects in Latin America. We recognize 
that our dollars go a really long way in some of these 
geographies. And in fact, very small investments can yield 
outsized benefits for these species, having almost a catalytic 
role for them.
    Mrs. Peltola. Mr. Chairman, my next question is for Dr. 
Colden.
    I really appreciated your testimony. I was wondering if you 
can share a little bit about why supporting education, 
research, and monitoring is so important to maintaining healthy 
fisheries and coastal economies.
    Dr. Colden. Absolutely. Thank you so much for the question. 
I will start with education.
    Saving the Chesapeake Bay is a long-term prospect. Our 
organization and others throughout the watershed have been 
working for more than 50 years to try to tackle this very 
large, very complex issue. That is why we think it is so 
incredibly important to make those investments in our next 
generation of Bay stewards through K-12 education. It not only 
has been shown to improve their academic performance, but it 
has also been shown to really connect them with the watershed 
and also give students the feeling that there is something that 
they can do in order to improve their local environment.
    We find that education is absolutely critical to instilling 
that early sense of stewardship in students, and we have seen 
the benefits of that as many of our own staff at the Chesapeake 
Bay Foundation and others working in the restoration 
partnership have gone on because of those experiences to work 
on Bay restoration for their career.
    As far as research and monitoring, we are right on the 
cutting edge. Chesapeake Bay actually sits in a very unique 
biogeographic area, where there is a transition from some 
tropical and subtropical species to more temperate species. So, 
as our climate continues to change and we observe those 
observations in the Chesapeake Bay, it will be ground zero for 
seeing rain shifts, seeing impacts of warming waters, impacts 
of changes to ocean acidification. So, we believe that 
investing in research and monitoring in the Chesapeake Bay will 
give us those important insights right on the front lines, 
which will be applicable to other estuaries throughout the 
United States.
    Mrs. Peltola. Just a quick follow-up on there. Are there 
any fisheries or species that you think could benefit 
significantly from the passage of this legislation?
    And I know you talked extensively about oysters, but are 
there some others?
    Dr. Colden. Yes, absolutely. There is a tremendous number 
of species which use the Chesapeake Bay as a nursery habitat, 
but either spawn within the Chesapeake Bay or spawn offshore 
and come into the Chesapeake Bay. Our anadromous fishes, for 
example, things like Atlantic striped bass, the endangered 
Atlantic sturgeon, blue crabs, these are all species which 
support important commercial and recreational fisheries, and 
also that are either using the Chesapeake Bay as a nursery or a 
spawning area that then those fish move out of the Chesapeake 
Bay and support fisheries all along the Atlantic coast.
    So, understanding the dynamics of what is going on in the 
Chesapeake Bay will have benefits for states all along the East 
Coast.
    Mrs. Peltola. And their economies, yes.
    Dr. Colden. Yes, absolutely.
    Mrs. Peltola. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes Mrs. Radewagen for 5 
minutes.
    Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 
Huffman. I want to welcome the panel and thank you for 
appearing today. My questions are for Mr. Caccese.
    Fear of both government and ESA regulations and other red 
tape can often make it difficult to get the support of industry 
and private landowners for conservation projects. What can 
Congress do to get buy-in from these partners and incentivize 
more voluntary conservation?
    Mr. Caccese. Yes, thank you for the question. And really, 
at the heart of it, it comes down to providing the resources.
    Having the private landowners reach out and be interested 
in doing a voluntary conservation measure on their property, 
there is a wealth of benefits that occur whether it is habitat, 
whether it is increased outdoor recreation, a booming economy, 
et cetera. But really, once one person does it, they can tell 
their neighbors. At least I know that usually when you are 
looking for advice on how good of a product something is, you 
are going to talk to somebody to see what their thoughts are on 
it. And that is what we have seen with this program, is 
neighbors sharing their good stories and good news. And it has 
really had an effect with others wanting to get into it, as 
well. So, really, it boils down to providing those resources.
    Mrs. Radewagen. So, it is clear that it takes a broad 
coalition of partners to make conservation programs successful. 
Why should Federal agencies continue to work with the states to 
facilitate many of these on-the-ground partnerships?
    Mr. Caccese. Yes, again, thank you for the question.
    The states are the boots on the ground. And they have, No. 
1, the authority within their jurisdictions for handling 
certain species. They have created partnerships with the local 
NGOs, counties, boroughs, parishes that they may live in, as 
well as knowing how resources can be used in different ways.
    It is really between, again, partnerships, trusts that have 
been built, use of those resources, and then a knowledge of 
essentially the backyard, right, the habitat that is in those 
areas. The state agencies are really the ones that can work 
with the Feds on the funding, but then take those resources and 
really put them back into the community.
    Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you. Keeping species off the ESA list 
is important, but what are some of the economic benefits the 
public can expect from investing in state and private landowner 
conservation programs?
    Mr. Caccese. Sure. And again, thanks for the question.
    Really, I think it is certainty. Putting voluntary measures 
in place, again, it can help put outdoor recreation at the 
forefront, it can help increase jobs in certain areas. I know 
there was an example that I can refer to in Louisiana, where 
there was a project, about $5.5 million that essentially aims 
to protect and restore 90,000 acres of fire-adapted plant 
communities. And what that does then is it opens up and will 
open up, three different public lands areas for outdoor 
recreation but, again, create jobs and increase that habitat to 
what it once was. So, a lot of different benefits.
    Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you, Chairman Bentz. I yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Ranking Member 
Huffman for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Colden, I want to start with you and begin by 
complimenting you on how well you have a command of your 
subject matter and explain that in such a compelling way to all 
of us today. I am conditioned, of course, to believe that the 
San Francisco Bay estuary is the center of the universe. But 
listening to you does make me think that this Chesapeake Bay 
place might be kind of a big deal. So, thank you for that.
    And I want to ask you about some of the pressures that we 
have talked about here today threatening the Chesapeake Bay 
estuary: Ag runoff, industrial sewage, pollution, overfishing, 
coastal development, and others, all exacerbated by climate 
change. And I am wondering if you can elaborate a little bit on 
how programs like the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Education and 
Training Program kind of serve as an early warning system to 
help anticipate and understand emerging threats, and why that 
is so important for the communities that rely on the Chesapeake 
Bay watershed.
    Dr. Colden. Yes, thank you so much. I appreciate the 
opportunity to speak more about the B-WET program and 
environmental education.
    As I mentioned previously, we are able to reach a 
tremendous number of students and teachers through the B-WET 
program, hundreds of thousands over the past 20 years. And to 
borrow the name of an old TV show, Kids Do Say the Darndest 
Things. So, we really get an insight into the hearts and minds 
of how our communities are viewing the Chesapeake Bay, how they 
are viewing the Chesapeake Bay cleanup and restoration through 
interaction with these students as they come through the 
education programs that Chesapeake Bay Foundation and many 
other organizations work on.
    So, we get to have some immediate feedback, but also have 
learned that some of the best teachers are children going home 
and speaking to their families or speaking to their parents 
about the things that they have learned through environmental 
education. So, really growing that stewardship from the 
youngest Bay stewards all the way up through their families and 
making change systematically that way is a really important way 
that the environmental education works its way through our 
watershed.
    Mr. Huffman. There is also a collaborative element to this 
work: partnerships between universities, non-profits, community 
stakeholders. How does that improve research and monitoring in 
the Chesapeake Bay, and what is your hope for future 
collaborations if we can pass this legislation?
    Dr. Colden. Collaboration has been absolutely essential to 
all of the progress that has been made thus far in Chesapeake 
Bay restoration. The reason why it is so important is because 
it brings together the best of every different sector, and all 
of the strengths that we have as a community to this very large 
and complex problem.
    For example, the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office provides a 
fisheries research funding program which provides grant funding 
to universities and other academic institutions to carry out 
cutting-edge research. We are making sure, through that grant 
funding program, that folks who are on the front lines of the 
latest in the scientific methods and approaches are able to 
carry out this very timely and management relevant research 
that goes, because of NCBO's involvement in the Chesapeake Bay 
program partnership, right back into the management framework.
    So, there is a very strong feedback loop between research, 
monitoring, and management.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you.
    Ms. Robinson, Dr. Colden educated us a bit about the 
importance of oysters. From the NOAA perspective, though, I 
wonder if you could speak a little bit about the critical work 
on oyster reef restoration that this legislation would sustain, 
and what your hopes are for the future of that work.
    Ms. Robinson. Absolutely, thank you for the question. As we 
have heard today, the oyster restoration is not only important 
from a water quality perspective, but also because it serves as 
critical habitat for species such as striped bass and blue 
crabs.
    And while we are really pleased with the progress we have 
made so far, we also know that current oyster population levels 
are well below historic highs, and we want to continue to build 
upon our successes that we have had collaborating with all of 
our partners, continue this great work of oyster restoration 
into the future.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes Mr. LaMalfa for 5 minutes.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry to 
parachute in on this from a previous Committee, and I hope I 
have no redundancy here.
    But I wanted to ask a couple of our panelists, under the 
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program to assist with the fish 
food program, which we are having some pretty decent success 
with on the Sacramento River area in Northern California in 
rice country. Please comment, Mr. Guertin and Ms. Robinson, on 
that, if you would, on what you see, the potential there, how 
the progress is so far, and what potential it would yield for 
being able to increase fish populations using farmers and 
available technology and lands that would complement that.
    Mr. Guertin. Thank you, Congressman, for your question.
    The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program is one of our 
premier, voluntary, non-regulatory approaches that we can 
employ to work with ranchers, farmers throughout the country. 
In Northern California, as you point out, we are doing a lot of 
work. I am aware we did some work, for example, on the Scott 
River drainage, which benefited a lot of coho and chinook 
salmon runs, and things like that.
    We do a lot of work where we can provide technical 
assistance, we can provide project dollars, we can work with 
landowners, help them develop a business model that will allow 
them to increase yields, balance that with wildlife 
conservation measures. And just 2 weeks ago, I was out in 
Montana for the Partnerscapes Conference. On private lands day, 
we had about 50 landowners from around the country there, 
seminars on fire management and invasive species control, 
seminars on things like that.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Certainly, so you look at it as a very 
positive partnership that you want to continue to be a part of?
    Mr. Guertin. Yes, Congressman. This is one of our most 
effective programs. We have been able to work with 50,000 
landowners across the United States.
    Mr. LaMalfa. OK, let me throw it to Ms. Robinson, too.
    Ms. Robinson. We aren't engaged in that specific program. 
Would you like me to speak to some of our habitat restoration 
work in that area?
    Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, that would be helpful.
    Ms. Robinson. OK. Our community-based restoration program 
focuses both on providing funding for on-the-ground 
restoration, as well as technical assistance, like Fish and 
Wildlife Service, to make sure that we are getting good habitat 
restoration on the ground that addresses the recovery of 
endangered species.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you. Let me shift to the Klamath Lake 
and Klamath River for a moment, please, as we have a waterfowl 
bill here. It isn't necessarily geared toward the Pacific 
Flyway, but we do have giant issues with the Pacific Flyway, 
and how important that the basin is for propagating ducks and 
other waterfowl, and how difficult that has been the last few 
years here with the way water is being allocated or not 
allocated to those refuges and areas, and agriculture is an 
important part of that.
    Please comment what you think moving forward with these, 
the only species management there is for the fish in the river 
or in the lake, and the waterfowl has been left to suffer on 
that. Mr. Guertin, please.
    Mr. Guertin. Thank you for your question, Congressman. I 
know there has been a lot of frustration by hunters in that 
region. We have had to eliminate or curtail some of their 
hunting opportunities for waterfowl. The long-term restoration 
vision for the Klamath Basin is to restore that ecological 
function, to balance out the needs for the endangered species 
fish with vibrant waterfowl populations and hunting 
opportunities, providing recreation and commercial fishers, as 
well.
    We have testified previously about some of the investments 
the Administration is making through the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law that is dedicating millions of dollars there 
to the Klamath Basin to help alleviate some of the frustration 
folks have felt about those lack of hunting opportunities.
    Mr. LaMalfa. It isn't just hunting, it is the actual 
populations that are being devastated. And the whole situation 
is just hell bent on sending water only down the river, much to 
the detriment of agriculture. So, when you talk restoration, 
does that mean agriculture is going to be restored out of 
business in the basin? That is what many people are concerned 
about, because all should be at the table, especially since 
there was plenty of water in the lake this year, and the 
numbers just keep decreasing, both for Ag and for the refuge.
    So, with 10 seconds left, Ms. Robinson?
    Ms. Robinson. I will just echo that I think the entire 
Federal family is working with the states and all of the 
interests in the Klamath Basin to come up with a sustainable 
solution going forward.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Congresswoman 
Dingell for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Protecting wildlife has always been a top priority. Many of 
you know that I am very concerned about America's shrinking 
wildlife populations. And, unfortunately, it is a problem that 
extends far beyond our nation's borders. Global wildlife 
populations are also facing growing risks, and research shows 
world wildlife populations have plummeted nearly 70 percent in 
the last 50 years. This should alarm all of us.
    As part of our response to the biodiversity crisis, the 
Multinational Species Conservation Fund, or MSCF, was enacted 
by Congress to address this decline. Since 1989, this program 
has enabled the Fish and Wildlife Service to provide more than 
4,500 grants totaling more than $330 million in support of 
cost-effective partnerships to advance international 
conservation.
    For decades, it has played a key role in protecting some of 
the world's most treasured species like elephants, rhinos, 
tigers, and great apes that are now being pushed toward 
extinction, due to the threats of poaching, human encroachment, 
and illegal hunting and trapping. For example, funding projects 
have led the international effort over the past decade to halt 
and reverse the rapid growth in the poaching of wild elephants 
and rhinos. Grants have also helped secure the remaining 
habitats for many great ape species such as gorillas and 
orangutans.
    The MSCF has been highly successful in strengthening global 
wildlife conservation, which is why I am proud to join 
Representative Joyce in introducing the Wildlife Innovation and 
Longevity Driver Reauthorization Act, or WILD Act, to 
reauthorize it for 5 years. And I deeply appreciate 
Representative Joyce's partnership with this important 
legislation.
    So, let me ask some quick questions. Mr. Guertin, can you 
elaborate on the successes of the MSCF?
    Mr. Guertin. Thank you for your question, Congresswoman.
    This has been a highly effective international effort on 
behalf of the U.S. Government, deployed through the Fish and 
Wildlife Service. We have been able to deliver hundreds and 
hundreds of quality conservation projects working in 
partnership with our counterparts in range countries. This has 
benefited many species, including Asian and African elephants, 
rhinos, and others.
    My colleague, Mr. Cassidy, talked a little previously about 
some of the work Safari Club International does on that front, 
and we recognize and value that partnership, and we believe, if 
reauthorized, we can continue that momentum.
    But more importantly, this would provide almost a third 
more funding, going from $20 million to $30 million. The 
projects we get already are at that level. So, if Congress 
reauthorizes this program at a higher level, we could redouble 
our efforts and deliver more quality conservation on the 
ground.
    Mrs. Dingell. Would you build on that, on what new threats 
to wildlife will the MSCF be able to address?
    Mr. Guertin. We are addressing many challenges within the 
habitats of these species. These range from competition with 
agriculture, they range from habitat destruction, they range 
from a changing climate. There is a lot of poaching going on 
and illegal hunting. So, we are able to, through these 
projects, put in place a lot more protection with fencing, 
rangers and patrols, on-the-ground surveillance, monitoring of 
populations, and head off any future issues that we may see.
    So, that reauthorization will give us the authority to 
continue to deploy the program and do these good conservation 
efforts.
    Mrs. Dingell. And can you elaborate on the role local 
communities play in recovering declining populations?
    Mr. Guertin. Local communities are the fulcrum point of our 
effort with any type of work that we do, whether it is 
internationally or domestically. Our first imperative is to 
partner with local communities, local government organizations, 
build trust and confidence, demonstrate to them through our 
prior successes our ability to have a successful partnership 
and deliver outcomes. That is the same for the Multinational 
Species Conservation Fund as it is for the Partners for Fish 
and Wildlife Program here in the United States.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. It is very important we be able to 
protect wildlife for future generations, and I believe that 
this reauthorization is a critical part of this.
    I will briefly add, because I can't not, that I hope the 
Recovering America's Wildlife Act, which invests in the 
proactive conservation of America's imperiled wildlife, is part 
of this conversation.
    I look forward to working alongside all of my colleagues to 
swiftly reauthorize the MSCF without delay.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. The Chair recognizes himself for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Wraithmell, what is the greatest driver of bird 
mortality?
    Ms. Wraithmell. The greatest driver of bird mortality is 
[Audio malfunction].
    Mr. Bentz. It has been suggested by the gentleman to my 
left that it is actually cats.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Bentz. That is not true?
    My wife is a veterinarian. She suggests that it is not 
cats, either, but I don't believe her.
    So, my question to you is do these bills appropriately 
address, focus upon, and prioritize your view of what is the 
greatest driver of mortality? And if not, what should we do 
differently in the bills?
    Ms. Wraithmell. Thank you so much for your question. Yes, I 
do think that they provide latitude to address all of the 
issues that are affecting birds in the places that are most 
important to them. And the bill is very strategic in the way 
that it is increasing the funding that is available for these 
programs because we recognize there have been so many 
applications that have simply gone unfunded for lack of 
funding.
    At the same time, by addressing some of the cost share 
issues, it is making the program more accessible, especially to 
smaller partners and partners in other geographies so that the 
money is ending up in the geographies that the birds [Audio 
malfunction].
    Mr. Bentz. Right. And forgive me for going so rapidly here, 
but we are going to be called to the Floor soon.
    So, the money that is being spent is doing something good. 
And the measure of that good is what I am interested in. And I 
am going to move to Dr. Colden with a similar question in a 
moment, but the measure of the good, how many millions of birds 
have been saved as a result of the money that we are spending.
    Ms. Wraithmell. I would have to get back with a specific 
number for how many millions of birds, my apologies. But I 
think that we can look at the acres that have been protected, 
particularly in wintering grounds, as a proxy for the number of 
birds.
    Mr. Bentz. What I would be interested in, if perhaps you 
can share it, is the measure of good that these expenditures 
are achieving, not just broad, general swipes that yes, we 
throw money at it and it gets better. I would like to see the 
numbers.
    Dr. Colden, I actually asked Ms. Robinson this yesterday in 
regard to the education aspect of some of these bills. And I 
was on school boards in the past--actually, two of them--for a 
number of years. And I would repeatedly ask for measures of 
performance, measures of outcomes. And I heard a lot of general 
statements about how great this educational effort is. Tell me, 
what is your measure of that greatness?
    Dr. Colden. There are studies that show that the increase 
in academic performance, particularly in the areas of science 
and math and other STEM fields, do benefit from environmental 
education and curricula that is developed under these programs.
    Mr. Bentz. Can you stop there for a second? These bills are 
not designed--at least I don't think they are--to drive 
educational output in STEM; they are designed as, I thought, 
for purposes of environmental benefit.
    Now, perhaps the definition of environmental benefit is 
such that STEM fits in there someplace, but it almost seems 
like that would belong in a different committee. But share with 
me why you think that would be a measure of good that these 
bills are trying to drive?
    Dr. Colden. Exactly. As I mentioned previously, this is a 
long-term effort, and we need to be building the scientific 
workforce that can drive these restoration projects long-term. 
So, by getting students interested in STEM fields, and then 
supporting them through career development through middle 
school, high school, and through college, we are building the 
workforce that can help continue the work of Chesapeake Bay 
restoration.
    Mr. Bentz. I may well agree with you. Can you show me the 
study that proves what you just said?
    Dr. Colden. I will follow up with whatever metrics that we 
have available with the Committee. I am happy to do that.
    Mr. Bentz. That would be great, and forgive me for being so 
abrupt, but I believe we are going to be out of time here soon.
    Mr. Cassidy, elaborate on what you think the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife isn't doing correctly. I think you were alluding to 
how things could be done better.
    Mr. Cassidy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 
question.
    I mentioned CITES, where we have a very outsized role on 
that international stage. We are 1 out of 183 parties. One 
vote, but a lot of countries around the world look to us and 
the positions that we take. I want to say I attended the last 
convention of parties in Panama City, where we as a country 
took positions that were against sustainable use. I want to 
just say that it came as a surprise, I think, an unpleasant 
one, to a number of our partners. I think that that goes to 
needs to have stronger, better consultative processes and more 
transparency with how we arrive at the votes we end up taking 
as a nation at these conventions.

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. I will have to stop you there. I 
really appreciate your answers.
    I want to thank all the witnesses for their testimony and 
the Members for their questions.
    The members of the Committee may have additional questions 
for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to these in 
writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the Committee must 
submit questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5 p.m. on Monday, 
October 23. The hearing record will be held open for 10 
business days for these responses.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Subcommittee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 11:13 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]