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






                                 



 
      H.R. 7408, ``AMERICA'S WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION 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

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                        Wednesday, March 6, 2024

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-101

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
       
       [GRAPHIC(S) 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 
 55-062              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 Sabla n,
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,               PRTeresa 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, March 6, 2024.........................     1

Statement of Members:

    Bentz, Hon. Cliff, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Oregon............................................     1
    Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California........................................     3
    Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Arkansas..........................................     5

Statement of Witnesses:

    Strickler, Matthew, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and 
      Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, Washington, 
      DC.........................................................     7
        Prepared statement of....................................     9
    Booth, Austin, Director, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, 
      Little Rock, Arkansas......................................    18
        Prepared statement of....................................    19
    Bronson, Ryan, Director of Government Affairs, Rocky Mountain 
      Elk Foundation, Missoula, Montana..........................    23
        Prepared statement of....................................    25
    Olson, Glenn, Donal O'Brien Chair in Bird Conservation and 
      Public Policy, National Audubon Society, New York, New York    26
        Prepared statement of....................................    28
        Supplemental testimony submitted for the record..........    30
    Tenny, David P., President and CEO, National Alliance of 
      Forest Owners, Washington, DC..............................    37
        Prepared statement of....................................    38

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Statement for the 
      Record.....................................................    73

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Westerman

        Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Letter 
          of Support.............................................    77
        National Cattlemen's Beef Association and Public Lands 
          Council, Letter of Support.............................    78
        Property and Environmental Research Center, Letter of 
          Support................................................    80
        SEAFWA, ``Non-Hunting Sport Shooters' and Firearm Owners' 
          Attitudes Toward the Federal Aid in Wildlife 
          Restoration Program''..................................    82
        Outside Groups Supporting H.R. 7408......................    83
        Associated Builders and Contractors, Letter of Support...    84

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Huffman

        Poster used in hearing...................................    43
        ``Bruce bucks'' image....................................    44
        AWHCA and RAWA Comparison of Sample State Apportionment 
          Estimations............................................    44
        Letter from stakeholders opposing H.R. 7408..............    85
        Letter from stakeholders opposing CEQ funding cuts in 
          H.R. 7408..............................................    88
        Letter from stakeholders opposing coastal resilience 
          funding cuts in H.R. 7408..............................    89

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Dingell

        Co-sponsor lists for RAWA in the 117th Congress and 118th 
          Congress...............................................    50
        117th Congress RAWA Floor Vote...........................    56
        Blue Ribbon Panel, ``The Future of America's Fish and 
          Wildlife--Final Report and Recommendations'' March 2016    59
        H.R. 2773, ``Recovering America's Wildlife Act of 2002''.    60
        Letters of Support for RAWA from multiple stakeholders...    61
        RAWA Markup, 116th Congress, Committee Report 116-685, 
          Pt. 1..................................................    63
                                     



   LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 7408, TO AMEND THE PITTMAN-ROBERTSON 
   WILDLIFE RESTORATION ACT TO MAKE SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR 
 MANAGEMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE SPECIES OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED 
   AS DETERMINED BY STATE FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES, AND FOR OTHER 
       PURPOSES, ``AMERICA'S WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION ACT''

                              ----------                              


                        Wednesday, March 6, 2024

                     U.S. House of Representatives

             Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:05 p.m., in 
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Cliff Bentz 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Bentz, Radewagen, LaMalfa, 
Kiggans, Duarte, Hageman, Westerman; Huffman, Peltola, Hoyle, 
and Dingell.

    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.
    We are here today to consider H.R. 7408, ``America's 
Wildlife Habitat Conservation Act,'' sponsored by Chairman 
Westerman of Arkansas. I now recognize myself for a 5-minute 
opening statement.

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

    Mr. Bentz. Today, the Water, Wildlife and Fisheries 
Subcommittee will consider H.R. 7408, the America's Wildlife 
Habitat Conservation Act, offered by Congressman Bruce 
Westerman of Arkansas. This legislation is a combination of 
policies that would, if enacted, increase the chances of 
recovering at-risk species, sharpen the operation of the 
Endangered Species Act, and improve the investment of tax 
dollars dedicated to these important areas.
    Specifically, this legislation would invest in state 
wildlife programs such as congressionally-mandated State 
Wildlife Action Plans, which serve as outlines for the recovery 
of species of greatest concern. These programs exist in 50 
states and in U.S. territories.
    The bill imposes congressional oversight on the expenditure 
of taxpayer money, assuring that the allocation of these funds 
is actually resulting in habitat restoration and species 
recovery.
    This legislation will also improve management of our 
National Wildlife Refuge System by granting Good Neighbor 
Authority to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This is 
important to me because the Klamath Basin located in Oregon and 
Northern California is the home to six National Wildlife 
Refuges. I represent that portion of the Basin in Oregon, and 
Congressman LaMalfa represents the portion of the Basin in 
California.
    We have firsthand knowledge of the neglect and intentional 
damage being inflicted upon these refuges by the inappropriate 
taking of the refuges' water to support in-stream interests, 
rather than the creatures that need the habitat formerly 
available in the refuges. This Good Neighbor Authority will 
provide the Service with a means of working with other states, 
tribes, and counties to conduct and implement improved 
management of refuges across the United States.
    I would be remiss if, while discussing refuges, I fail to 
mention the truly damaging rule concerning refuges recently 
proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife. This rule would damage 
refuges by limiting practices that are beneficial to the birds 
using the refuges. These practices include use of certain types 
of crops, the management of bird-hungry predators, and other 
standard agricultural practices. These regulations will harm 
our refuges by limiting the use of Good Neighbor Authority. 
This is an issue that this Committee will be looking into.
    The bill would also provide a legislative fix to Cottonwood 
Environmental Law Center v. U.S. Forest Service, a Ninth 
Circuit decision that has triggered a reinitiation of 
consultation frenzy in our National Forest System. This result 
is not improved management, but instead has caused and 
continues to cause inefficient and duplicative planning 
efforts, diverting the Forest Service from focusing upon the 
existential dangers of wildfire and the many other important 
issues our forests face. The court's misguided decision to 
force unnecessary and duplicative review of all other plans 
upon a triggering event will be corrected in this bill.
    H.R. 7408 also makes common-sense and strategic reforms to 
the Endangered Species Act that are designed to empower private 
landowners and states to conserve and restore habitat for 
listed species. It is clear from its own data that the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service has failed in its responsibility to 
recover species. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 300 domestic species were projected to recover by 
2023, but only 57 species have recovered. This bill addresses 
this dismal record, providing incentives to thousands of 
private landowners, states, counties, tribes, and others that 
will promote species recovery and improve the ways we have 
available to actually recover species.
    One of the many innovative ideas in this bill is its 
requirement that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 
National Marine Fisheries develop objective, incremental 
recovery goals for listed species, and then to provide 
regulatory relief as those goals are met. Having these agencies 
determine and explain in detail the numbers of species needed 
to achieve sustainability is valuable for any number of 
reasons, but here are several.
    A clear statement of the goal to be achieved will allow the 
agencies to immediately reduce regulation when that goal is 
achieved.
    Secondly, a clear statement of the number of species 
necessary to achieve sustainability will provide assurance to 
the agency so it can discontinue efforts in that area and shift 
to other species in need without, hopefully, the flood of 
lawsuits that inevitably follow agency actions.
    Finally, establishing a goal will avoid what is happening 
now with the grizzly bear. Two thousand was the general idea, 
two thousand bears. Now, there are close to 8,000, and still 
confusion as to which number is correct. This situation is best 
described by Lewis Carroll, who said, ``When you don't know 
where you're going, any road will get you there.'' We are way 
past being able to afford the cost of wandering about, not 
knowing where we are going, and this bill provides a 
requirement that we actually know what we are trying to achieve 
when it comes to species recovery.
    I am looking forward to hearing from Chair Westerman, the 
sponsor of this legislation, and hearing from all of the 
witnesses joining us 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. Good morning. Nearly a decade ago, 
representatives from states, NGOs, businesses, and sportsmen 
were assembled into a blue ribbon panel to answer an important 
question: What is needed to fully implement State Wildlife 
Action Plans so we can stop the drastic decline in important 
species and their habitat? And the response was clear: $1.3 
billion annually in mandatory, permanent funding to realize a 
transformative approach to conservation.
    This formed the foundation of Representative Debbie 
Dingell's bipartisan Recovering America's Wildlife Act, or 
RAWA. The work of Debbie Dingell and our colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle, in conjunction with an inclusive and 
deliberative process, is a testament to how big bipartisan 
bills have always happened. They did everything right, and that 
is why RAWA passed the House with solid bipartisan support last 
Congress, and garnered thousands of endorsements and strong 
state and tribal support from all over the country.
    But thoughtful, bipartisan lawmaking fell out of favor when 
team extreme took over the House. Instead of building on this 
great work, the Chairman has hijacked and frankly made a 
partisan mess of RAWA. After a year of promising that he was 
committed to getting this done, this bill that we are 
considering today is all we got. We went from a bill with 42 
Republican co-sponsors and 17 Republicans voting for it on the 
House Floor to a bill that has no bipartisan support because it 
has been turned into a MAGA ransom note.
    No wonder team extreme can't figure out its messaging. 
Since the rollout, we have heard three different narratives. 
``It is not RAWA'' is one of them. Then there is ``it is kind 
of like RAWA.'' And then there is ``it is better than RAWA.'' 
So, for those wondering which it is, let me help. Kind of like 
RAWA is certainly not it. Better than RAWA is definitely not 
it. Not RAWA is closer, but doesn't quite capture it.
    The real description is that it is anti-RAWA, it is a 
Trojan horse that undermines Fish and Wildlife funding. This 
botched attempt at rewriting RAWA lacks mandatory permanent 
funding, which was the whole point from the blue ribbon panel. 
It only authorizes $320 million annually for all of our states 
and territories. And let's be clear: That $320 million isn't 
real money. You know that, right?
    Team extreme, the folks who scramble for Democratic votes 
every time there is a must-pass piece of legislation in this 
Congress, expect you to believe that you can count on them to 
appropriate this funding every year. For those watching at home 
who may have heard the Chairman's opening statements, or who 
may be listening to what we are certainly going to hear in a 
moment from Mr. Westerman, you may have thought that House 
Republicans had an epiphany and are actually proposing a 
serious investment in protecting wildlife.
    Let me explain what is really going on here. For any 
additional wildlife funding to happen under this bill, the 
money would have to be specifically appropriated by a future 
Congress. This messy bill doesn't bother to do it because team 
extreme would never vote for it. So, the $320 million, that is 
essentially Monopoly money. And I will pass some around here 
for those who are interested in pretending that we are actually 
funding wildlife. And team extreme is going to keep handing out 
real taxpayer money, we know that, to their friends in the 
fossil fuel industry and the mining industries. We have seen 
that in several of their bills. But for wildlife, pretend money 
is going to have to do.
    Look, unfortunately, this is not the only problem with the 
bill. It point blank undermines existing habitat conservation 
efforts by rescinding over $1 billion for conservation and 
permitting from the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law, rescinding a billion real dollars in return 
for $320 million pretend. What a deal for wildlife.
    It also guts the commitments we have made to local 
conservation efforts. The rewrite of the tribal title is 
appalling, slashing the authorization to just $20 million a 
year, which is supposed to cover all 574 federally recognized 
tribes. That comes down to about $20,000 per tribe annually. 
That is insulting.
    Straying further from the blue ribbon recommendations, the 
bill would sunset the Pittman-Robertson Act sub-account in 
2029, leaving states and tribes in chaos and uncertainty.
    Oh, and if you didn't notice, under this Chairman's bill, 
10 of the 16 states and territories represented by members of 
this Subcommittee will actually be losing money for habitat 
conservation, including Chairman Westerman's home state of 
Arkansas.
    And finally, it wouldn't be a Subcommittee hearing without 
an attack on our bedrock environmental laws. This bill 
dismantles core ESA protections.
    So, look, folks, we are running out of time to address our 
biodiversity crisis to help wildlife. We had a blue ribbon 
panel that led to RAWA. We need to finish the good work that 
Representative Dingell and so many others began in the previous 
Congress. This bill is a partisan, harmful, and extreme attempt 
to take us backward. We should oppose it and let Representative 
Dingell and folks who are serious about wildlife funding get 
back to work.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. I now recognize the Chairman of the Full 
Committee, Mr. Westerman, for his opening statement.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE WESTERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Bentz. It sounds like 
Representative Huffman is almost there on this one.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Westerman. It was once said some of my colleagues 
across the aisle aren't always trying to mislead people or mis-
state facts, they just know so much about just what isn't so. 
And I think we have seen an illustration of that today.
    And I will remind everybody that the bill that my colleague 
referred to did pass the House last Congress with a Democrat 
Majority, but it didn't even get a vote in the Democrat Senate, 
Democratic-controlled Senate, or obviously, it didn't make it 
to the Democrat President's desk. So, we are trying to do 
something that is actually good for wildlife management and 
fiscally responsible. And that is why I am glad that we are 
holding a hearing on my bill, H.R. 7408, the America's Wildlife 
Habitat Conservation Act.
    And, again, I want to thank everyone for being here.
    The long-term health of our species is determined by the 
quantity and quality of habitat that they call home. And the 
best way to recover at-risk species is by restoring their 
habitat. To borrow a phrase from the Field of Dreams, ``If you 
build it, they will come.'' America's Wildlife Habitat 
Conservation Act brings together a series of investments in 
conservation and policy initiatives that are designed to 
empower states, tribes, and private landowners to restore 
habitat for species, including species listed under the 
Endangered Species Act and those at risk of being listed under 
the ESA.
    And for those who may think this is an extreme way to do 
business, it is kind of the same model we use for the farm 
bill, where we reauthorize it every 5 years and it is subject 
to appropriations. So, it doesn't seem like such an extreme way 
to do business to me.
    Mr. Chairman, something I particularly want to highlight 
that makes this bill unique is that it will play a role in 
restoring wildlife habitat across all landownerships, whether 
state, Federal, tribal, or private lands.
    What the bill does on private lands will be especially 
critical. As the conservationist Aldo Leopold put it, 
``conservation will ultimately boil down to rewarding the 
private landowner who conserves the public interest.'' The 
legislation encourages state game and fish agencies to partner 
with and give technical assistance to private landowners who 
want to engage in habitat restoration efforts on their land.
    Additionally, it provides regulatory certainty to private 
landowners who are investing in conservation on their lands by 
prohibiting the designation of critical habitat on those lands.
    The bill also takes an innovative step by giving states the 
opportunity to fund habitat conservation activities through 
revenues raised by habitat conservation projects. Imagine that, 
conservation that funds itself over time without requiring a 
massive permanent mandatory spending program from the Federal 
Government.
    Many people claim that conservation and economic success 
are mutually exclusive. However, I believe the two do go hand 
in hand. We are blessed with a rich abundance of resources, but 
we have a sacred responsibility to manage them properly. Doing 
so would not only be a benefit to our environment, but would 
also tremendously help our rural economies.
    I know that in my district we have so much potential. And 
while we do a good job of managing our resources, including on 
Federal lands, there are obviously opportunities to do even 
more. For example, the Forest Service completed a landscape-
scale habitat restoration project for the benefit of the red-
cockaded woodpecker in Arkansas. They went in and thinned the 
timber, and were able to use the sale of the timber to pay for 
the management cost. This not only created habitat for the red-
cockaded woodpecker, but also produced more songbirds, quail, 
turkey, and deer. And we have a picture of what that looks 
like.
    [Slide.]
    Mr. Westerman. And this is pretty simple. That is untreated 
forest. That is the management. And that is what you get at the 
end of the day. And guess what? It didn't cost the taxpayers 
anything. It paid for itself, so you wouldn't need permanent 
mandatory spending to do work like that.
    H.R. 7408 also proposes common-sense reforms to the ESA 
that empower states to have more management opportunity and 
regulatory authority over certain listed species. No one knows 
how to manage species better than the communities that live 
closest to them, and it is about time we took authority away 
from DC bureaucrats and put it back in the hands of the men and 
women who know their wildlife best and know how to create the 
habitat that will sustain these wildlife.
    And I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank 
you the witnesses that will be testifying today. I look forward 
to hearing from each of you.
    I yield back.

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Chairman Westerman. I thank the 
gentlemen for the opening statements. I will now introduce our 
witness panel.
    Mr. Matt Strickler, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and 
Wildlife and Parks with the Department of the Interior in 
Washington, DC; Mr. Austin Booth, Director of the Arkansas Game 
and Fish Commission in Little Rock, Arkansas; Mr. Ryan Bronson, 
Director of Government Affairs with the Rocky Mountain Elk 
Foundation in Missoula, Montana; Mr. Glenn Olson, the Donal 
O'Brien Chair in Bird Conservation and Public Policy for the 
National Audubon Society in New York, New York; and Mr. Dave 
Tenny, President and CEO of the National Alliance of Forest 
Owners in Washington, DC.
    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. And at the end of 5 minutes, the light will turn red, 
and I will ask you to stop talking. It says, ``complete the 
statement,'' but I have learned.
    I also allow all witnesses to testify before Member 
questioning.
    I now recognize Mr. Strickler for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF MATTHEW STRICKLER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR 
   FISH AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 
                         WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Strickler. Good morning, Chairmen Westerman and Bentz, 
Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the Subcommittee. My 
name is Matt Strickler. I serve as Deputy Assistant Secretary 
for Fish and Wildlife and Parks at the Department of the 
Interior. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you 
today on H.R. 7408, the America's Wildlife Habitat Conservation 
Act.
    I would like to start by saying that the Department 
supports many of the goals of this legislation. We agree it is 
important to conserve and restore wildlife habitat. We agree it 
is important to recover species listed under the Endangered 
Species Act, and to take conservation actions that will keep 
other species from needing the Act's protections in the first 
place. We support the extension of Good Neighbor and 
Stewardship Contracting Authority to the Fish and Wildlife 
Service, and we support the intent of protection for landowners 
against Freedom of Information Act disclosure of the occurrence 
and location of listed species. That is important common 
ground, and I don't want it to get lost in the course of this 
hearing.
    With that said, we need to be clear about the fact that our 
planet and our country are experiencing compounding climate and 
biodiversity crises that have major negative implications for 
our natural heritage, the livability of our communities, and 
the health and safety of the American people. We cannot begin 
to face down these challenges without bold action and a serious 
commitment of dedicated resources for habitat restoration and 
species and ecosystem recovery.
    The 2015 Blue Ribbon Panel on Sustaining America's Diverse 
Fish and Wildlife Resources estimated that $1.3 billion is 
needed each year to fully implement congressionally-mandated 
State Wildlife Action Plans. Unfortunately, Congress has never 
funded these plans at more than $90 million annually, and in 
recent years the number has been less than $70 million. This 
doesn't even account for the chronic underfunding of the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service's Endangered Species Act work.
    Against this backdrop, this bill is a significant step 
backwards from the bipartisan legislation that passed the House 
last Congress. There is no guarantee that a new $300 million 
authorization will move congressional appropriators to fund 
these activities at higher levels than they have in the past. 
And taking away nearly a billion-and-a-half dollars in 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act 
funding that has already been appropriated is simply counter-
productive.
    Communities across the country have benefited and will 
continue to benefit from the deployment of these BIL and IRA 
funds, and the jobs and economic development that come along 
with them. These dollars are doing everything from replacing 
aging irrigation infrastructure, to restoring aquatic 
ecosystems, to making coastal communities more resilient to 
hurricanes. Given how much there is to do to strengthen our 
economy and our environment, we cannot afford to trade-off 
these secure funds.
    The provisions of this bill that weaken the Endangered 
Species Act also work against the legislation's stated 
purposes. The ESA works. We just celebrated the 50th 
anniversary of this remarkable law that has prevented the 
extinction of almost all species that have received its 
protections, has recovered dozens of species, and has put many, 
many more on a path to recovery. Making it more difficult for 
the Fish and Wildlife Service to implement by altering the 
successful Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances 
Framework, complicating the designation of critical habitat on 
private land, making problematic changes to the process of 
creating 4(d) rules, and prematurely turning management of 
listed species back over to the states will not help protect 
wildlife habitat or improve the likelihood of species recovery.
    The dedicated public servants of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service are working hard every day in close partnership with 
states, tribes, localities, industry, private landowners, and 
other Federal agencies to protect and recover species and their 
habitats, while also accommodating economic activities that, if 
left unregulated, would negatively impact those species and 
habitats. It is an incredibly difficult job, and they deserve 
Congress' support to do it. Unfortunately, the legislation, as 
written, does not meet the moment.
    For those reasons and others included in our written 
testimony, the Department cannot support H.R. 7408 as a whole, 
and must strongly oppose the proposed rescissions of BIL and 
IRA funding in many of the ESA-related sections. We would 
welcome the opportunity to work with the Chairman and 
Subcommittee to address our concerns and recommendations. 
Hopefully, we can build on the common ground that we have 
identified and arrive at a bipartisan solution that moves us 
closer to accomplishing our shared wildlife habitat and 
conservation goals.
    I am happy to answer any questions you have. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Strickler follows:]
Prepared Statement of Matthew J. Strickler, Deputy Assistant Secretary 
      for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior

Introduction

    Good morning, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and Members 
of the Subcommittee. I am Matthew J. Strickler, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks within the Department of the 
Interior (Department). I appreciate the opportunity to testify before 
you today on H.R. 7408, the America's Wildlife Habitat Conservation 
Act.
    Generations of habitat loss and the spread of invasive species and 
disease, all exacerbated by a rapidly warming climate, put ever-
increasing pressure on America's wildlife. Many species are being 
pushed to the brink and we are facing a biodiversity crisis, increasing 
the need to protect species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 
complicating efforts to recover species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (Service) is doing everything we can to leverage partnerships 
to accomplish our conservation mission. Working with others, we 
implement strategic, science-based conservation measures on the ground 
to conserve and improve habitat, recover species, and conserve species 
under the ESA, which can also help prevent the need for listing. When 
given the tools and resources to accomplish this work, the Service, 
together with states, Tribes, territories, landowners, and non-federal 
partners can do great things--and nature, when given a chance, can 
rebound.
    In 2000 and 2001 respectively, Congress created the State and 
Tribal Wildlife Grant Programs, which led to the development of the 
State Wildlife Action Plans (Action Plans). These plans were a historic 
progression in wildlife management by state fish and wildlife agencies. 
Collectively, they provided the first nationwide blueprint for 
conserving fish and wildlife. State wildlife agencies identified over 
12,000 rare, declining, and imperiled species of fish and wildlife and 
the conservation actions needed for their recovery. The critically 
important conservation work envisioned in these plans cannot be 
implemented without sufficient resources, and the resource needs are 
great. However, Congress has never supported these programs at the 
levels needed for them to reach their full potential. In FY 2010, 
Congress appropriated $90 million, which was the high point for funding 
the Action Plans. More recently, the State Wildlife Grant (SWG) 
Program's average annual appropriation has been about a third less, or 
$67 million per fiscal year.
    In 2015, the Blue-Ribbon Panel on Sustaining America's Diverse Fish 
and Wildlife Resources, convened by the Association of Fish and 
Wildlife Agencies, estimated that $1.3 billion is needed each year to 
fully implement the Action Plans. Demand for Tribal Wildlife Grant 
Program funds by Tribes is similarly high and yet only about 25 percent 
of applicants are awarded funds each year due to insufficient funding 
for the program. Dedicated, robust, predictable, and reliable funding 
that addresses the resource needs of states and Tribes for their 
conservation goals would be transformational. Making this investment in 
conservation today will yield long-term benefits, including 
strengthened wildlife populations, improved ecosystem function, job 
creation and economic development, enhanced recreation opportunities, 
and health and safety benefits for local communities.
    Congress has the opportunity to once again enact a significant and 
holistic investment in the conservation of our nation's wildlife. The 
Department supports many of the goals identified in the legislation, 
including conserving and improving habitat, recovering listed species 
and preventing the need to list species under the ESA, and extending 
good neighbor and stewardship contracting authorities to the Service. 
However, this bill falls short, as we believe robust, predictable 
funding is essential to address the resource needs of states and Tribes 
for the conservation of at-risk species and recovery of listed species. 
Additionally, we have significant concerns with many of the provisions 
in the legislation. While we appreciate and support the goals of some 
parts of this legislation, as a whole and as written, we oppose this 
legislation.
    The Department strongly opposes the rescissions of the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law (BIL) and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) funding in 
this legislation. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which we 
commonly refer to as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law or BIL, has been 
a transformational investment. This investment, which provided 
significant and dedicated funding in a number of discrete areas, has 
dramatically expanded the Service's ability to support locally led 
projects benefiting people and wildlife. It has enabled us to identify 
new approaches to addressing long-standing, complex conservation 
challenges across the nation, including in the Klamath Basin, the 
sagebrush ecosystem, and Lake Tahoe, as well as nationwide efforts to 
restore fish habitat connectivity. We have seen that the habitat 
restoration work done under BIL supports good paying jobs today and 
makes investments in nature that will provide sustained economic and 
ecosystem dividends far into the future. The funding that would be 
rescinded by H.R. 7408 was provided by Congress to address aging water 
infrastructure across the West, water conservation and energy 
efficiency, as well as for collaborative ecosystem restoration projects 
to improve the health of fisheries, wildlife, and aquatic habitat. 
These are programs that need more investment, not less.
    Additionally, we believe that more needs to be done if we are to 
meet the conservation challenges that we face as a nation. The 
Department does not currently support the legislation as drafted and 
recommends changes to the structure of the proposed legislation to 
ensure the reliable funding needed to address the escalating challenges 
facing wildlife and meet the growing resource needs of states, Tribes, 
and territories, as well as the Service. The Department also has 
concerns with and opposes several of the ESA implementation provisions. 
My testimony below addresses these suggestions and concerns in greater 
detail. We welcome the opportunity to work with the Chairman on this 
legislation.
Title I--Wildlife Conservation and Restoration

    The Service appreciates the intent and the purpose of Title I of 
H.R. 7408 to conserve and improve habitat, recover listed species, and 
prevent the need to list at-risk species. However, the Service has 
numerous recommendations that are necessary to accomplish the goals of 
the legislation and meet the challenges facing America's wildlife 
today. Similar to the SWG Program, Title I of H.R. 7408 would authorize 
additional resources for states and territories to implement their 
Action Plans and to restore habitat for the conservation of species at 
risk.
    The SWG Program has a 20-year track record of collaborative 
conservation success. Through the SWG Program, each State and territory 
has developed science-based Action Plans, often with input from Tribes, 
which provide a roadmap for fish and wildlife conservation in every 
corner of America. State agencies have begun to address the highest 
priority needs identified in the Action Plans and have demonstrated the 
value of timely, collaborative, science-based actions taken to conserve 
wildlife and their habitats before they become too rare or costly to 
restore. Conservation work funded by the SWG Program and guided by the 
Action Plans has helped candidate species avoid listing under the ESA 
and helped threatened or endangered species progress toward recovery.
    The Service understands that the annual appropriation of $300 
million authorized in H.R. 7408 is intended to address the backlog of 
habitat restoration work identified in the Action Plans. This 
beneficial intent would be best supported through predictable funding, 
but the ultimate effectiveness of this provision under the bill is tied 
to annual appropriations. As noted above, the Blue-Ribbon Panel 
determined that $1.3 billion is needed each year to fully implement the 
Action Plans, but recent annual appropriations for the SWG Program have 
been about $67 million per fiscal year--far short of the need.
    State and Tribal partners often pursue projects under their Action 
Plans that require either planning years in advance or sustained 
funding over a similar time period. Similarly, state and Tribal 
partners will likely need to build additional capacity to develop and 
implement the grants that H.R. 7408 proposes. Without the surety 
provided through dedicated funding, it would be difficult for partners 
to hire additional full-time employees and efficiently plan and 
implement projects. The Service notes that other mandatory funding 
streams, including through the Wildlife Restoration (also known as 
Pittman-Robertson) grant program, have been particularly successful 
because partners are able to reliably plan for future projects and 
supplement their capacity. For the reasons stated above, it was the 
recommendation of the Blue-Ribbon Panel that robust, predictable 
funding be made available, and the Service looks forward to working 
toward this goal with the Chairman and Subcommittee.
    In addition, we have numerous comments and suggestions regarding 
the specific provisions in Title I of H.R. 7408, which are outlined 
below.
    The Service notes that many of the allowable uses of the funding 
under H.R. 7408 do not include a requirement to facilitate recovery of 
listed species or prevent the need to list at-risk species. The Service 
recommends strengthening the connection between the allowable uses of 
funding and the recovery of listed species and proactive conservation 
of at-risk species. Additionally, the Service is concerned that some of 
the restrictions on land acquisition in H.R. 7408 would be difficult to 
implement for the states. The ability for states to acquire lands is an 
important tool for the conservation of species of greatest conservation 
need. Limiting the ability of states to acquire lands with funds 
appropriated under H.R. 7408 only when ``no other source of funding is 
available to purchase such land'' could lead to challenges and delays 
with critical conservation work. The Service suggests this provision be 
limited to ``when no other source of Department of the Interior funding 
is available to purchase such land.'' This would clarify that other 
funds would still be needed for the required non-federal match. The 
Service supports the provisions in H.R. 7408 that would allow grant 
projects to be funded with a 10% non-federal match, instead of a 25% 
non-federal match.
    Further, a holistic approach to recovering species listed under the 
ESA, and preventing at-risk species from needing to be listed, will 
require additional resources for the Service, as outlined in the 
President's Budget. Such resources would help recover listed species by 
supporting development of recovery plans and implementation of 
activities identified in existing recovery plans. The Service requires 
sufficient resources to effectively carry out its statutory obligations 
under the ESA. There are many species for which the Service or other 
stakeholders have few resources available to engage in recovery 
efforts. This fact was highlighted in the Service's FY 2020 Endangered 
and Threatened Species Expenditures Report, which found that for 27 
percent of listed species, less than a total of $5,000 were reported by 
federal and state agencies as expended per species.
    Other areas of ESA implementation also require additional 
resources, as outlined in the President's Budget. Between 2003 and 
2022, Service environmental review staff decreased by 20 percent while 
new species were listed and economic activity and litigation increased. 
The number of projects received by the Service has increased 
significantly since 2022, reflecting the investments made through the 
BIL and IRA. We anticipate that project funding under the IRA and BIL 
will further increase the demand for Service technical assistance and 
consultations under Section 7 of the ESA. Additional resources are 
necessary to ensure that the Service can help federal action agencies 
fully meet their responsibilities under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA in a 
timely manner. In addition to the requested funding to increase 
environmental permitting capacity, the President's Budget also proposes 
to expand our existing authorities to allow federal agencies to more 
effectively transfer funds provided under BIL to both the Service and 
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to complete permitting 
activities.
    The Service carries out robust collaboration efforts on voluntary 
conservation agreements under Section 10 of the ESA. Having the 
resources necessary to support these efforts to work with our partners 
is another important component of being able to holistically address 
the recovery of listed species and improve the ecological health of at-
risk species. Voluntary landowner conservation agreements provide 
conservation benefits for species and regulatory predictability for 
landowners and other partners.
    The Service appreciates that H.R. 7408 would dedicate 10 percent of 
the appropriated funds to a competitive innovation grant program. The 
program would catalyze new techniques, tools, strategies, and 
collaborative partnerships to benefit species of greatest conservation 
need. Some of America's most cutting-edge conservation initiatives--
including efforts to conserve species at landscape scales by working 
across state and Tribal boundaries--have received timely and critical 
support from the SWG Program.
    The Service notes that we would not be capable of undertaking this 
grant program with the prescribed administrative funding level of 0.33 
percent for Title I. This administrative funding level would not allow 
for the Service to meet its fiduciary program integrity and compliance 
responsibilities or support states and territories with federal 
financial assistance processes. This funding level would not be 
sufficient for the Service to comply with federal environmental laws 
including the ESA, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the 
National Environmental Policy Act--requirements for all habitat 
restoration projects. The funding level is also insufficient for the 
Service to help states and territories develop the required biennial 
rigorous accountability measures for the program and prepare summary 
reports for Congress.
    The Service is able to administer large grant programs, such as the 
Wildlife Restoration program, efficiently with low administrative 
funding rates. This is due to multiple factors, including scales of 
efficiencies generated by grants with large funding, well-established 
implementation policies and procedures, and an expert staff of grant 
management professionals located around the country to collaboratively 
support state efforts. These efficiencies would not be in place for a 
new grant program and would not be achievable with an administrative 
funding rate of 0.33 percent. In addition, the Service manages the 
administrative funding for the Wildlife Restoration and Sport Fish 
Restoration grant programs in accordance with the Administrative 
Improvement Act's (16 U.S.C. 669h and 777h) explicit administrative 
expense criteria. The Administrative Improvement Act restricts use of 
Wildlife Restoration and Sport Fish Restoration administrative funding 
to the direct implementation of those two grant programs, negating the 
ability for the Service to use that funding to administer H.R. 7408.
    To address this concern, the Service recommends an administrative 
funding level of three percent to administer Title I. A three percent 
administrative rate is consistent with the rates identified for the 
competitive innovation grant program in Title I, with the Tribal 
Wildlife Conservation and Restoration in Title II, and the Wildlife 
Conservation Restoration Program (Pub L. 106-553).
    Lastly, as currently drafted, H.R. 7408 is integrated within the 
Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program (Pub L. 106-553) and the 
Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669). It appears that some of the 
current language in H.R. 7408 would apply only to the Wildlife 
Conservation Restoration Program, yet others would apply to the 
Wildlife Restoration Act in its entirety. This would impact all the 
programs within the Wildlife Restoration Act, in both how these grant 
programs would be implemented and how revenue generated by the states 
under H.R. 7408 could be spent.
    The Service welcomes the opportunity to work with the Chairman and 
Subcommittee to address these comments, concerns, and recommendations.
Title II--Tribal Wildlife Conservation and Restoration

    Title II of H.R. 7408 would establish a Tribal Wildlife 
Conservation and Restoration Account authorized at $20 million per year 
through FY 2029. The bill directs the Director of the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs (BIA) to establish a noncompetitive grant program to distribute 
funding to Tribes. The grants would be used for conservation and 
restoration programs for habitat and wildlife.
    The BIA notes concerns with the funding match requirement in Title 
II. Requiring Tribes to match federal funding is often a significant 
barrier to participation. Additionally, while the BIA appreciates the 
funding and authorization of this program in Title II, it would like to 
further discuss the use of noncompetitive grants as $20 million in 
formula distribution will amount to a small per-Tribe funding amount. 
The BIA suggests explicitly including Tribal Conservation Law 
Enforcement Officers (CLEO) as a use of funds. CLEO are critical to the 
success of Tribal conservation and fish and wildlife management on 
Tribal lands and inclusion in this statutory authority would ensure 
they are effectively supported.
Title III--Conservation and Management for Wildlife Refuges

    Title III of H.R. 7408, grants the Service good neighbor authority 
(GNA) and stewardship contracting authority (SCA) for restoration 
services, as requested in the Service's FY 2024 budget proposal. The 
Service conducts a wide range of restoration services on our lands, 
including treating insect- and disease-infested trees, removing 
hazardous fuels, utilizing prescribed burns, and managing invasive 
plant species. GNA and SCA would supplement the Service's capacity to 
conduct these projects with support from states, counties, Tribes, and 
local partners. The U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 
have a proven and successful record of engagement with non-federal 
partners to expand their capacity for critical restoration services on 
federal lands using GNA and SCA. Extending these authorities to the 
Service would improve our ability to protect and improve wildlife 
habitat on our lands, including on national wildlife refuges, and 
reduce impacts to adjacent lands. The Service strongly supports the 
inclusion of GNA and SCA for ecosystem restoration in H.R. 7408 and 
appreciates the Chairman's support for these provisions. However, the 
authorization here is much broader than is necessary for the Service to 
accomplish its habitat restoration objectives.
    Additionally, this title would provide the Service with GNA for a 
suite of recreation services. Improving and expanding public access and 
compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities is a priority 
for the Service. We work with a wide array of partners, through 
cooperative agreements, lease agreements, and special use permits to 
enhance our recreation facilities. As it is unclear exactly how this 
authority could be used and what impacts it might have on wildlife 
habitat, we have some concerns, but look forward to learning more and 
working with the Committee to avoid unintended consequences.
    The Service greatly appreciates the collaborative approach of the 
Chairman's staff on this legislative language. We welcome the 
opportunity to continue working together to provide additional 
technical assistance on this Title. The Service recommends including 
additional language to ensure that projects conducted under these 
agreements align with management goals, existing law, and the Service's 
conservation mission. We would also appreciate the opportunity to work 
with the Subcommittee to better understand how the provision regarding 
GNA for recreation would complement our existing authorities and 
strengthen our ability to work with partners.
Title IV--Incentivizing Wildlife Conservation on Private Lands

    The Service has a number of concerns regarding Title IV of H.R. 
7408 and strongly opposes Sections 401 and 402. The Service shares the 
Chairman's interest in addressing issues related to species location 
data and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and would appreciate the 
opportunity to work with the Chairman and Subcommittee on recommended 
improvements to Section 403.
    Title IV would require the Secretary of the Interior to consider 
net conservation benefits of Candidate Conservation Agreements with 
Assurances (CCAAs) or programmatic CCAAs when determining if a species 
is considered threatened or endangered under the ESA. This title would 
codify language regarding CCAAs and programmatic CCAAs within Section 
10 of the ESA that would reflect a number of changes to existing policy 
regarding such agreements.
    Regulatory policy regarding CCAAs and programmatic CCAAs is 
outlined in 50 CFR 17.22. This legislation would expand the scope of 
parties covered by such agreements by changing the language from 
applying only to non-federal landowners so that it also requires the 
inclusion of federal agencies if the covered party consents to the 
request by the agency. It would also exempt CCAAs and programmatic 
CCAAs from Section 7 consultations. Both changes undermine the purpose 
of Section 7 of the ESA. That purpose helps ensure that any action 
authorized, funded, or carried out by a federal agency is not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered 
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat 
of such species. While the Service and NMFS are the primary agencies 
responsible for implementing the ESA, all federal agencies are 
responsible for utilizing their authorities to further the purposes of 
the ESA.
    H.R. 7408 would create a new 120-day deadline for the Secretary to 
determine whether or not to approve a CCAA. At the same time, the bill 
decreases the level of responsibility of the non-federal parties to the 
agreement and increases the administrative workload for the Service, 
both in setting up and implementing the agreement. This includes 
requiring the Service to determine baseline conditions in the plan area 
and eliminating the already very narrow instances in which a covered 
party may need to take additional conservation measures due to 
unforeseen circumstances.
    H.R. 7408 also limits the species that can be included in a CCAA to 
``candidate species'' defined as candidate and proposed species. 
Currently, unlisted species that either are, or are likely to become, 
candidates for listing in the future are eligible for inclusion in 
CCAAs. By narrowing the range of at-risk species that may be included 
in a CCAA, this legislation would limit voluntary conservation 
agreements for other at-risk species that are likely to become listed 
in the future. H.R. 7408 would enable a party to a programmatic CCAA to 
enroll other parties in the agreement and convey any existing permit 
authorization to them as well. It would also require the Secretary to 
go through a public comment process on any programmatic CCAA, but would 
remove the comment period for permit applications under CCAAs and the 
process for objecting to permit issuance. Further, H.R. 7408 requires 
the Secretary to provide a written explanation for denials of CCAAs and 
adjustments that would enable the Secretary to approve the proposed 
agreement, even though this type of agreement may in some cases not be 
in the best interest of the candidate species.
    The Service works collaboratively with landowners in developing 
CCAAs. In return, the Service issues Enhancement of Survival Permits 
that provide assurances that, if the species is subsequently listed and 
no other changes have occurred, the Service will not require the 
permittee to conduct any additional conservation measures without 
consent. Additionally, the permit authorizes a specific level of 
incidental take of the covered species, should listing occur. The 
current CCAA and programmatic CCAA regulations provide incentives for 
non-federal landowners to voluntarily conserve candidate species, as 
well as other non-listed at-risk species, by providing a net 
conservation benefit through one or more of the following actions: 
protecting existing populations and habitats; restoring historical 
populations; restoring or creating new habitat; and declining to 
undertake potentially damaging activity. This system effectively 
balances proactive voluntary conservation and minimization of risk for 
non-federal landowners.
    Additionally, in February 2023, the Administration published a 
proposed rule regarding Section 10(a)(1)(A) Enhancement of Survival and 
Section 10(a)(1)(B) Incidental take Permits. These changes would 
improve implementation and streamline the conservation programs 
associated with the issuance of enhancement of survival permits and 
incidental take permits, including permits associated with CCAAs. The 
proposed regulatory revisions would increase efficiency and flexibility 
by combining Safe Harbor Agreements and CCAAs into one agreement type 
so that one agreement can cover both non-listed and listed species.
    Title IV of the America's Wildlife Habitat Conservation Act would 
unnecessarily upend the balance the Service has established through the 
CCAAs and impose additional procedural requirements and uncertainty to 
a successful voluntary conservation program for which the Service has 
existing authority.
    Title IV would also prohibit the Secretary from designating as 
critical habitat privately owned or controlled land that is subject to 
a land management plan that meets certain criteria. Critical habitat 
could not be designated on private land that is subject to a management 
plan that is similar to an integrated natural resources management 
plan, or was prepared in cooperation with the Department and state 
agencies, or meets other criteria, such as that the Secretary 
determines will maintain the population of the species and minimize 
impacts of activities that would likely result in incidental take of 
the species.
    When the Service designates critical habitat, we follow a science-
based process to identify those specific areas that are essential for 
species conservation. Critical habitat designations are an important 
tool to educate the public and other federal agencies regarding areas 
essential for recovery of listed species. These designations do not 
create preserves or parks, nor do they affect activities by private 
landowners where there is no federal funding or authorization involved. 
Critical habitat designations affect federal agency actions or 
federally funded or permitted activities. The ESA requires federal 
agencies to ensure that their actions are not likely to destroy or 
adversely modify designated critical habitat.
    The language in this section would effectively force the Service to 
identify any existing land management plans, compare them to the bill's 
criteria, and determine whether or not they would sufficiently minimize 
and mitigate impacts to the species. This will add additional 
analytical requirements to an already challenging designation process 
that must be completed within statutory deadlines, and the bill does 
not include funding for additional personnel. The Service developed a 
joint policy with NMFS for excluding areas from designations of 
critical habitat. This 2016 policy provides guidance for implementing 
Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA that allows discretionary exclusion of 
specific areas from a designation of critical habitat based on specific 
circumstances. The policy provides details on consideration of 
conservation plans and partnerships, and Section 10 of the ESA 
permitted plans as the basis for excluding areas. The proposed language 
of this Title would add confusion for the Service and public, and would 
be unnecessary considering the guidance outlined in the 2016 policy. 
The Administration opposes these sections and believes they would 
undermine the science-based process used to protect listed species.
    In addition, this Title would prohibit the Secretary from making 
information on the occurrence or specific location of a species of 
fish, wildlife, or plant on privately owned or controlled land publicly 
available in response to FOIA requests. The Department would be able to 
provide such information publicly if a written request is submitted by 
a federal or state agency or an educational or research institution, 
and also the private party concerned.
    The Service appreciates the Chairman's interest in this issue. 
While FOIA contains several exemptions that agencies can use to 
withhold certain types of information, such as confidential business 
information or national security-related information, location 
information on protected or at-risk species generally doesn't qualify 
for an exemption. The Service's inability to withhold location 
information impacts our ability to work effectively with partners and 
has other harmful implications for vulnerable species. Many federally 
recognized Tribes have listed species on their lands, and some have 
declined to share information about species locations due to FOIA 
concerns. Certain state wildlife agencies have shared concerns 
regarding public release of state-owned data. We have also found that 
many private landowners or companies are often unwilling to provide the 
Federal government details regarding species that are listed or under 
review that occur on their property because they are concerned about 
that information being disclosed to the public through FOIA. Some 
researchers and museum collectors have also refused to share 
information on certain rare species due to FOIA concerns. These 
concerns of our partners have a chilling effect on research and 
collaborative conservation, and they may result in an underestimation 
of the contribution of private lands to conservation and make it harder 
for the Service to assess population and habitat status. Further, some 
species can be put at risk by FOIA disclosures of their exact locations 
due to increased threats from wildlife trafficking, or because there is 
an unsustainable demand for people to see them in their habitat.
    The Service encourages the Chairman and Subcommittee to adjust the 
proposed FOIA exemption to apply to information regarding the 
occurrence, or specific location of data regarding species that are 
protected under the ESA or other statutes, and at-risk species, 
regardless of whether they occur on Federal, state, Tribal, or private 
lands. The Service would appreciate the opportunity to work with the 
sponsor and Subcommittee on technical assistance on Section 403.
Title V--Forest Information Reform

    Title V of H.R. 7408 includes the language of the Forest 
Information Reform Act (H.R. 200). This language states that neither 
the Department of the Interior nor the Department of Agriculture are 
required to reinitiate consultation on a land management plan when a 
species is listed as threatened or endangered, critical habitat is 
designated, or new information concerning a listed species or critical 
habitat becomes available. This language is related to the Cottonwood 
decision and complications regarding forest management. The 
Administration recognizes that this is an important issue. The 
Departments of the Interior and Agriculture have worked closely 
together to provide technical assistance on legislation on this topic 
in the past.
    The Administration believes important nuances are missing from the 
language in H.R. 7408. For example, stating that the Secretary shall 
not be required to reinitiate consultation on a ``completed land and 
resource management plan that has no on the ground effects'' would be 
an important distinction that would help prevent harmful unintended 
consequences of this legislation. The Service has recommended changes 
to Title V and would welcome the opportunity to work with the Chairman 
to provide technical assistance.
Title VI--Providing for Greater Incentives to Recover Listed Species

    Title VI of H.R. 7408 would modify the section 4(d) requirements 
and protections for species listed as threatened under the ESA. If the 
Secretary issues a threatened species regulation that includes any 
prohibitions provided for endangered species, such as prohibitions on 
import or export, or take, the Secretary must also establish recovery 
goals, provide for decreasing stringency of regulation as these goals 
are met, and provide for state management after these goals are met. 
The legislation provides that such a regulation would not apply to a 
state that has entered into a cooperative agreement with the Secretary 
unless the state also adopts such regulation. H.R. 7408 would also 
enable states to develop recovery strategies for threatened or 
candidate species and petition the Secretary to use that strategy as 
the basis for any 4(d) regulations for that species within that state. 
The Service strongly opposes Title VI.
    The Service has multiple concerns with Title VI of H.R. 7408. It is 
unclear how the proposed requirement for the Secretary to establish 
objective, incremental recovery goals would relate to current statutory 
requirements for recovery planning under section 4(f) of the ESA or to 
the proposed state recovery strategies, particularly with regard to the 
statutory requirement under section 4(f)(4) of the ESA to provide for 
public notice, review and comment before approval of a recovery plan. 
Under this Title, a state would take on management of a species after 
recovery goals are met and before a species is removed from the list of 
threatened species--but only if the state is willing to take on this 
management. This language would introduce greater complexity and 
confusion over jurisdiction and management of species and interrupt 
continuity of recovery activities. This legislation would increase the 
Service's procedural requirements and workload associated with listing 
a species as threatened with a 4(d) rule, all of which would still be 
subject to the statutory time frames for making listing determinations. 
As evidenced in the President's recent budget requests, the Service 
lacks sufficient funding to handle our listing workload under the 
existing listing process. Absent the resources to carry out these 
additional procedural steps, we will face an even greater risk of 
deadline litigation. In addition, the proposed requirement to evaluate 
and make findings on petitions from states to adopt state recovery 
strategies will add substantially to the workload of an already under-
resourced staff and will likely open another avenue of deadline and 
merits challenges to Service listing determinations.
    Under this Title, if the Service were to approve a state's petition 
to utilize a state recovery strategy for a threatened or candidate 
species as the basis for any regulations issued regarding the species 
within the state, the Service would be forced to adopt the strategy as 
the regulation itself. By preventing the Service from writing its own 
regulations, this Title raises Administrative Procedure Act concerns by 
not allowing public notice and comment, and would increase the 
likelihood of the Service having to deny a petition and go through 
multiple iterations with a state, greatly increasing the amount of 
resources expended by both the Service and the state. This legislation 
also places the burden on the Service to establish criteria for future 
evaluation of state recovery strategies and requires the Service to 
revise 4(d) regulations should the recovery strategy be ineffective in 
conserving the relevant species. The required deference to state 
regulatory mechanisms and recovery strategies would appear to make 
federal protection under the ESA deferential to state law. The Service 
notes that this legislation would likely create a state-by-state 
patchwork of different regulations across the range of a species.
    The Service has the existing ability to tailor 4(d) rules to 
species' needs and can currently craft rules in a manner that allows 
for greater flexibility than this legislation affords. In addition, 
whenever the Service proposes listing a species as a threatened species 
and identifies the protections that are necessary and advisable for the 
conservation of that species, states are afforded an opportunity to 
review and comment on the proposed rulemaking.
Title VII--Rescissions and Repeals

    The Department is concerned that H.R. 7408 would rescind $750 
million in funding provided to the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) 
under the BIL and the unobligated balance on the $25 million in funding 
provided to Reclamation under Section 50232 of the IRA. Additionally, 
H.R. 7408 would rescind $700 million in BIL funding provided to the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The Administration 
strongly opposes the rescinding of BIL and IRA funds and using them as 
offsets.
    Section 50232 of the IRA provides $25 million to Reclamation for 
the design, study, and implementation of projects (including pilot and 
demonstration projects) to cover water conveyance facilities with solar 
panels to generate renewable energy. Solar panels placed over canals 
have the potential to create new benefits and derive additional value 
from existing federal water resource projects. Since enactment of the 
IRA, Reclamation has been working with stakeholders and Tribes across 
the West on potential projects that can support water conservation and 
energy efficiency. On July 28, 2023, the Executive Co-Sponsors of 
Reclamation's Program Management Plan for IRA transmitted an Internal 
Call for Proposals (CFP) to Reclamation's regional directors requesting 
responses by October 30, 2023. Reclamation received multiple proposals 
from the regions, reviewed the proposals, and has begun to make 
selections and allocations.
    In December 2023, the Biden-Harris Administration announced the 
first project under this new authority, with nearly $6 million for the 
Gila River Indian Community in Arizona to construct and install solar 
panels over the Casa Blanca Canal. Reclamation will work with the Gila 
River Indian Community to cover 2,782 linear feet of the Casa Blanca 
Canal with approximately 2,556 solar panels. The solar panels are 
expected to generate 1.31 megawatts of clean energy, providing 2.26 
million kilowatt-hours of annual electricity to the Gila River Indian 
Community. This project will help inform similar projects to better 
understand their impacts and make that information publicly available.
    The remaining funding is planned to be used on similar 
opportunities across the West, with additional allocations expected to 
occur in February 2024. Without different types of projects spread out 
across the West, the ability of Reclamation and its partners to analyze 
the costs and benefits of solar panels over canals and their efficacy 
in different environments will be significantly reduced. Projects 
related to those that will be funded with Section 50232 of the IRA have 
received much support. This support includes a letter from 125 groups 
requesting that Reclamation develop an initiative to deploy solar panel 
systems over Reclamation's canals to produce renewable energy, reduce 
water loss, and help protect habitat managed by the Department. This 
effort has also received letters of support from the Legislative 
Director of the Sierra Club, local municipalities, Tribes, 
universities, and Reclamation's operating partners.
    The BIL provides $3.2 billion to address the extraordinary 
operation and maintenance needs of aging water infrastructure across 
the West and $250 million for the design, study, and construction of 
aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection projects.
    To date, Reclamation has committed $836 million in aging 
infrastructure funding and $51 million in aquatic ecosystems funding. 
Aging and inefficient water infrastructure is a major cause of water 
supply issues for thousands of communities across our country. Building 
on $240 million allocated in 2022, Reclamation announced in April 2023 
that an additional $585 million in funding is being provided to 83 
projects in 11 states to increase drought resilience and improve water 
delivery systems. Among the 83 projects selected for funding are 
efforts to increase canal capacity, provide water treatment for Tribes, 
replace equipment for hydropower production, and provide necessary 
maintenance to aging project buildings. Specific examples of the 
important work being done with this funding include $4 million for 
lining 6 miles of the New York Canal in Idaho to promote safety and 
conserve water lost to seepage, $10 million to rehabilitate or replace 
fish screens at the headworks at the North Unit Irrigation District 
main canal in Oregon, $6 million for repairs to the Fort Laramie Canal 
in Wyoming, and $35 million to restore safe, long-term operation of the 
Truckee Canal in Nevada.
    As noted in Reclamation's March 2023 Asset Management Report, the 
estimated total funding for Major Rehabilitation and Replacement (MR&R) 
over the next five years is $7.3 billion, with approximately $3 billion 
of anticipated MR&R activities planned to be funded by Reclamation. 
Future BIL investments in the nation's aging water infrastructure are 
critical to ensuring the safety of these projects to deliver clean, 
reliable water to communities, irrigators, ecosystems, and economies 
across the West. Reducing the funding would significantly reduce 
Reclamation's ability to fund water and power projects that support 
resilience and reliability of the nation's critical water 
infrastructure.
    The $44.6 million for aquatic ecosystems restoration and protection 
projects announced in December 2023 includes widespread interest in 
Reclamation's new WaterSMART Aquatic Ecosystems Restoration Program, 
with 18 projects across 8 states. Applications received in the second 
application period, which closed on January 24, 2024, collectively 
request approximately $200 million in federal funding. Together, the 
$44.6 million already allocated and the new proposals recently received 
represent a demand of almost $250 million, which is the total amount of 
BIL funding allocated to the WaterSMART Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration 
Program over the five-year period from 2022 to 2026. Accordingly, the 
funding from BIL is crucial to the implementation of this new program 
to support collaboratively developed ecosystem restoration projects 
that provide widespread regional benefits and improve the health of 
fisheries, wildlife, and aquatic habitat through restoration and 
improved fish passage. Additional BIL funding will be used for future 
funding rounds to provide widespread economic and environmental 
benefits, as well as to improve the health of fisheries and critical 
habitats.
    The Biden-Harris Administration strongly opposes the use of BIL and 
IRA funding as offsets. This funding was appropriated to Reclamation by 
Congress for its critical work on canals, aging infrastructure, and 
aquatic ecosystems.

    H.R. 7408 would also repeal three programs administered by the 
Service. The programs to be repealed include one to prevent, control, 
and eradicate invasive species in alpine lakes, a second to eradicate 
Asian giant hornet populations, and a third to address invasive species 
in Alaska, Hawaii, and U.S. territories. While these are important 
activities for conservation, the Service does not currently receive 
appropriations under these authorities and would continue to address 
invasive species through other successful programs.

Conclusion

    The Department appreciates the opportunity to testify on H.R. 7408, 
the America's Wildlife Habitat Conservation Act. We agree with the 
goals of parts of this legislation, including the need to conserve and 
improve habitat, recover listed species, advance proactive conservation 
of at-risk species, and extend good neighbor and stewardship 
contracting authorities to the Service. However, as a whole and as 
written, we oppose this legislation. Robust funding is essential to 
address the resources needs of states and Tribes for the conservation 
of at-risk species and recovery of listed species. Additionally, the 
Department strongly opposes the proposed funding offsets and we have 
concerns with many of the provisions related to ESA implementation. We 
would welcome the opportunity to work with the Chairman and the 
Subcommittee to address our concerns and recommendations. More can be 
done, and needs to be done, to change our trajectory and set our nation 
on a path to a strong and durable conservation future.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Strickler. I now recognize 
Director Booth for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF AUSTIN BOOTH, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS GAME AND FISH 
               COMMISSION, LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS

    Mr. Booth. Good morning, Chairman Westerman, Chairman 
Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and to the other members of the 
Committee. I am Austin Booth, the Director of the Arkansas Game 
and Fish Commission, and I would like to thank you for the 
opportunity to represent not only the fine state of Arkansas, 
but the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
    The Association, as some of you may know, represents state 
fish and wildlife agencies in all 50 states, the U.S. Virgin 
Islands, and the District of Columbia. And as you do know, we 
are the agencies that are principally responsible for managing 
fish and wildlife today. And, therefore, we will be held most 
accountable by the generations of tomorrow in how we steward 
our resources, both monetary and natural.
    Taken together, our present mission and also our future 
obligations means that we, as an association of state 
conservation agencies, we more than anybody else, are uniquely 
positioned with boots on the ground to work both urgently and 
collaboratively to advance the perpetual cause and ultimate 
success of conservation.
    In short, the association supports passage of H.R. 7408. 
This important and impactful bill will help resolve a decades-
long funding gap that needs to be addressed and needs to be 
addressed urgently so that state agencies like the Arkansas 
Game and Fish Commission can finally rise to the challenge of 
conserving and restoring the habitat for over 12,000 Species of 
Greatest Conservation Need.
    First and foremost, we greatly appreciate Chairman 
Westerman's willingness to prioritize funding to state fish and 
wildlife agencies. It is a large and big positive step forward 
to allow agencies like us to deliver voluntary and proactive 
conservation for fish and wildlife on both public and private 
lands.
    For nearly a century, state fish and wildlife agencies have 
been the reliable, transparent, and accountable stewards of 
Federal Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson funding. There 
are countless successes that we can point to throughout the 
country and in our own state of Arkansas, but some of these 
include the red-cockaded woodpecker, the black bear, white-
tailed deer, and wild turkey, just to name a few that have 
flourished under state management.
    Given this track record of demonstrated impact, we welcome 
the next 5 years of H.R. 7408 as an opportunity to not only 
have a greater impact on the landscape that we have had for the 
past 8 years, but also an opportunity to prove the necessity 
and feasibility of enduring and dedicated funding.
    To be abundantly clear, the most compelling reason to 
support this important bill is the urgency of what agencies 
like the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission see every single day 
on the landscape. This bill would provide more than $300 
million to proactive, not reactive, conservation practices, 
which is good for wildlife, it is good for taxpayers, it is 
good for businesses, and, most importantly, good for our 
communities that we all serve.
    As you know, the states currently receive only roughly $70 
million annually under the state and Tribal Wildlife Grant 
program to conserve more than 12,000 Species of Greatest 
Conservation Need. What does that look like in Arkansas? It 
looks like roughly $60,000 a year. However, if fully funded, 
H.R. 7408 would provide approximately five times that level of 
funding to help us address these SGCNs. More importantly, it 
would come with a match rate of 90/10.
    But this bill is much more than a funding measure; it 
doubles down on congressionally-mandated State Wildlife Action 
Plans as our scientifically-based blueprints that can guide 
investment, resulting in fewer random acts of conservation. 
This bill elevates the role of the private landowner through 
voluntary conservation practices. It captures perfectly the 
roll-up-your-sleeves partnership that we have and enjoy with 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It supports healthy and 
impactful forestry industries, and it recognizes the states as 
the true and valued partner in the recovery of listed species.
    This bill, in short, will fundamentally change the way that 
we approach conserving Species of Greatest Conservation Need, 
and all for the better.
    I would be remiss today if I did not thank Representative 
Dingell for her support for state fish and wildlife agencies. 
Over the years, she has raised awareness of the decline of 
thousands of non-game species, and we are very grateful for 
that.
    To conclude, as an association, we will continue to 
advocate for the need for sustained and dedicated funding. 
However, we greatly appreciate Chairman Westerman's commitment, 
and his passion for voluntary cooperative conservation, and his 
support for agencies like the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission 
in this bill. We acknowledge the challenges of advancing 
legislation that calls for creation of new funding, and deeply 
appreciate his willingness to take on that challenge.
    Once again, thank you for the opportunity to be here this 
morning, and I look forward to your questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Booth follows:]
            Prepared Statement of Austin T. Booth, Director,
                   Arkansas Game and Fish Commission

    Good morning, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and members 
of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you 
today.
    I am Austin Booth, Director of the Arkansas Game and Fish 
Commission. Today I am representing the Association of Fish and 
Wildlife Agencies (AFWA). AFWA's mission is to represent and 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. As you know, these are the 
agencies with principal management responsibility for fish and 
wildlife, so they are uniquely positioned to work collaboratively to 
improve habitat.
    America's Wildlife Habitat Conservation Act (AWHCA) would help 
resolve a decades-long funding gap that needs to be addressed so state 
agencies can meet the challenge of conserving and restoring habitat for 
over 12,000 Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN).
    The Association appreciates Chairman Westerman's willingness to 
prioritize funding to state fish and wildlife agencies for wildlife 
habitat restoration and supports passage of the bill as it is a 
positive step forward to providing funding that state agencies can use 
to deliver voluntary and proactive habitat conservation for fish and 
wildlife on public and private land.
    We also appreciate that this legislation will provide states with a 
set of tools to help us accomplish this work, and we hope it will pave 
the way for continued conversations about how we can address America's 
accelerating conservation challenges at the appropriate scale. State 
fish and wildlife agencies have been the reliable and transparent 
stewards of federal Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson funds for 
decades. There are countless successes to point to in my home state of 
Arkansas as well as across North America. Black bear, waterfowl, white-
tailed deer, and the wild turkey populations have recovered under state 
management. Given this success, we look forward to discussing 
opportunities to provide even greater flexibility for states to put 
these funds on the ground as this bill advances, specifically related 
to land acquisition and reporting requirements.
    The bill would authorize $300 million in annual funding for the 
next five years, subject to appropriations, to state agencies to help 
conserve declining fish and wildlife species, including species of 
greatest conservation need identified by the states. This includes 
those species already listed as threatened or endangered and others 
that are declining but not yet listed. Currently, on average, states in 
total only receive $70 million annually under the State and Tribal 
Wildlife Grant Program to conserve over 12,000 SGCN identified in their 
congressionally mandated State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs). If fully 
appropriated, H.R. 7408 would provide nearly 5 times the current level 
of funding to help states address critical species management and 
habitat needs.
    The costs of inaction are much greater than what it will take to 
conserve and restore SGCN. The federal government pays more than $1 
million in administrative costs to list a single species, and on 
average $18 million for science and habitat work once listed. In 
addition, it is estimated that listing costs the private sector 3-5 
times that due to direct costs, regulatory uncertainty, and foregone 
opportunities. If we had to list 2,000 species over the next decade, 
it would cost the federal government at least $38 billion and could 
cause $110-$190 billion in private sector costs.
    Proactive conservation is good for wildlife, good for taxpayers, 
good for business and good for our communities. By directing funds to 
states, America will be fueling shovel ready projects that immediately 
create jobs in a sector with one of the highest returns on investment, 
supporting continued world class outdoor recreation opportunities. 
Every $1 million invested in species and habitat conservation creates 
on average 33 quality jobs, so if fully funded, the bill would create 
nearly 10,000 jobs every year. Each dollar spent on conservation adds 
$2.40 to the nation's gross domestic product. The outdoor recreation 
economy as a whole, accounts for 2.2% of GDP.
    Funds authorized by AWHCA could be used for the management, 
control, and prevention of invasive species, disease, and other risks 
to the habitat of SGCN. States, through federal excise taxes, state 
hunting and fishing license revenues, and other federal and state 
funding programs have shown that they can restore popular game species 
like waterfowl, wild turkey, elk, and white-tailed deer. However, 
states are losing ground on conserving the full suite of species under 
their jurisdiction like butterflies, crayfish, mussels, amphibians, 
reptiles, and other non-hunted species. For these species, adequate 
funding streams do not currently exist. The risk here is that without 
proactive conservation these species may be candidates for federal or 
state listing, or worse yet, be driven to extinction. This bill 
highlights the need to fund management activities that are detailed in 
SWAPs to conserve these SGCN.
    The Act also encourages a variety of successful forest and 
vegetation management activities to improve forest health by modifying, 
improving, enhancing, or creating wildlife habitat to reduce the risk 
of damage or destruction to wildlife habitat due to wildfires, insects, 
or disease. These tools are critically important for conservation and 
restoration, particularly in Arkansas where many of our forests are too 
dense, suffering from lack of viable timber markets to absorb the 
potential wood yield, and lack of ecologically significant fire. Every 
year it seems that states are presented with new challenges and must 
rely on existing tools to try to address them. This bill recognizes the 
importance of active management to address these current and emerging 
challenges.
    The bill also encourages states and federal agencies to work 
collaboratively with private landowners to achieve positive 
conservation outcomes. State agencies have a long and successful track 
record of working with private landowners to deliver conservation. 
``Better together'' is an adage that is reflected in the bill.
    One example of this collaborative conservation in action is 
Arkansas's largest lizard, the eastern collared lizard, is an SGCN and 
is threatened due to glade habitat loss. Eastern collared lizards are 
keystone predators in glades, where they feed on insects, spiders and 
other smaller lizards. Glades are open, rocky, thin-soiled areas that 
are found within woodlands and forests. This habitat needs frequent 
prescribed fire to maintain its openness. Fire suppression has caused 
many acres of glades to become encroached with eastern red cedar and 
other woody growth. Without fire, native grasses and flowering plants 
cannot thrive, and open habitat is reduced.
    Since the early 2000s, the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) 
and partners have implemented numerous glade restoration projects on 
agency lands, partner lands, and private lands. Restoration efforts 
include removing eastern red cedar and conducting prescribed fire to 
reclaim high quality glade habitat. To date, more than 50,000 acres of 
glades and associated woodland complexes have been restored. Efforts 
are currently underway on an additional 2,500 acres. Populations of 
eastern collared lizards are being monitored as restoration continues. 
One population has been observed for several years and experienced 
population declines each year prior to restoration. Post-restoration, 
this population has now been stabilized. Although there have been great 
strides in conservation made for important species, without much needed 
funding, states won't be able to stay ahead of the pressures that keep 
pushing our fish and wildlife further toward becoming endangered.
    An additional example of collaborative conservation in Arkansas are 
our efforts for the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW). AGFC has partnered 
with the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, The Nature Conservancy, 
US Forest Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and private industry 
to protect, restore, and maintain habitat for this species. In 2010, 
state wildlife grant funds were used to reclaim open pine habitats with 
the use of thinning and prescribed fire at Warren Prairie Natural Area 
in Southeast Arkansas. Once habitat conditions were met, RCWs were re-
introduced to the site and today the area boasts a well-established 
breeding population. The AGFC, PotlatchDeltic, and other partners also 
work together at Moro Big Pine Natural Area/Wildlife Management Area to 
maintain open pine habitat and existing populations there. Currently, 
AGFC is working with the Ross Foundation in southwest Arkansas to 
restore habitat, with the goal of translocating RCWs in the future. 
Establishing a breeding colony here would fill in a gap between 
populations in the Ouachita Mountains and the Gulf Coastal Plain and 
provide a big step towards recovery for the species in the state.
    Looking to the future, the AGFC and state agencies across the 
country are ready to implement funds for conservation of SGCN at the 
habitat level, with shovel-ready projects waiting on Congressional 
support. Arkansas' rivers are nationally known for their quality and 
rugged beauty, and are the centerpiece of the outdoor recreation 
industry, undergirding Arkansas' livestock and poultry industries. 
Unfortunately, ever increasing sediment loads are negatively impacting 
both agriculture producers and canoeists alike, potentially leading to 
increased endangered species listings for the globally rare fish and 
mussels found here.
    Fortunately, Arkansas is well positioned to address these pervasive 
threats with the Arkansas' Rivers Conservation Initiative. Data 
collected by partners clearly demonstrates that for our highland rivers 
occurring in the Ozark and Ouachita mountains, the majority of sediment 
is coming from actively eroding stream banks and dirt and gravel roads. 
Over the past twelve years, Arkansas' conservation partnerships have 
been working with private landowners and County-roads managers to 
develop cost effective restoration plans to stabilize both riverbanks 
and gravel roads using advanced BMP's and stream-reach scale river 
restoration strategies. These partnerships have demonstrated success in 
multiple watersheds and are currently ready to expand, implementing 
projects for stream restoration and stabilization, riparian tree 
planting, off-site watering for livestock, dirt and gravel roads 
upgrades, road drainage, river corridor easements acquisition, forest 
carbon development, low-water crossing retro-fits, and aquatic barrier 
removals. Partners including private landowners, County Roads 
Departments, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arkansas Natural 
Heritage Commission, Trout Unlimited, and The Nature Conservancy are 
highly engaged and have proof-of-concept projects completed with 
baseline data collected and benchmarks established. This would support 
existing jobs and create new ones to reduce maintenance cost for 
counties, improve gravel roads for Arkansas citizens (85% of all roads 
in AR are gravel and receive little funding), protect drinking water, 
improve fishing and eco-tourism, reduce the chance of listing species 
as federally endangered, and reduce land lost to erosion on private 
lands.
    Finally, from the pine-oak woodlands of the Ozark highlands, to the 
bottomland forests of the Delta, to the pine curtain in the coastal-
plain of south Arkansas, our state's wealth and the health of our 
wildlife are tied to its forests. Fortunately, we are ready to 
implement the Keeping Arkansas Forest-as-Forest Initiative. Living 
within these forests are people, animals, and fish who all need healthy 
ecosystems to thrive. As mentioned, Arkansas' forests are too dense, 
suffering from lack of viable timber markets to absorb the potential 
wood yield and lack of ecologically significant fire. The goal of this 
initiative is to work with private industry and landowners to create 
market incentives to boost timber value while increasing the ability to 
deliver prescribed fire on private lands. Additionally, habitat strike 
teams funded through this initiative will implement prescribed burning, 
invasive species treatments, and timber stand improvement projects 
within focal areas that will benefit SGCN. The combined effect will 
improve habitat and reduce the chance of moving species into a 
federally protected status.
    Without funding for fish and wildlife conservation, fewer Arkansans 
will benefit from and have opportunities to enjoy the healthy fish and 
wildlife that is the fabric of many of our communities. Species 
familiar to generations of Arkansans like monarch butterflies, Northern 
Bobwhite quail, Alabama shad, Ozark hellbenders, Eastern Whippoorwills 
and hundreds of other species now need our help.
    The AWHCA also creates an innovation grant program with 10% of the 
funds ($30 million) for the purpose of catalyzing innovation of 
techniques, tools, strategies, or collaborative partnerships that 
accelerate, expand, or replicate effective and measurable recovery 
efforts for habitat of SGCN which includes those species listed under 
the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Encouraging and rewarding 
innovation is critically important. We haven't identified all the tools 
in the toolbox yet, and creating a program where our NGO partners, 
states, and tribes are encouraged to work together to identify projects 
and methods to advance conservation is incredibly important.
    The Act also establishes a 10% cost share for states, which will 
cut down on paperwork and reduce the burden on states to obtain 
matching funds, which in some instances can become a barrier to 
effective and efficient conservation. We applaud the Chairman's 
acknowledgement of the need for states to spend more time putting 
habitat on the ground, and less time chasing matching funds. States 
bring significant resources such as staff who provide technical 
assistance on a daily basis to deliver conservation for this country. 
States proudly can say that they regularly use their investments of 
funding, staff time, and other resources to stretch valuable federal 
funding whether through programs like Pittman Robertson, State and 
Tribal Wildlife Grants (STWGs) or the North American Wetlands 
Conservation Act (NAWCA). But, with the number of federal programs 
requiring higher match levels, finding eligible match can at times be a 
challenge. This bill contains a 90:10 match, the same match enacted for 
projects funded by Pittman-Robertson under the Target Practice and 
Marksmanship Training Support Act, meaning states can focus on getting 
conservation on the ground, which can be especially important when 
working with private landowners. States will continue to have skin in 
the game with a 10% cost share, not to mention the actual delivery of 
the habitat and conservation activities on the ground.
    While states agencies are primarily focused on the first title of 
the Act, the bill also includes funding for tribes to conduct similar 
management activities. The Act also includes a variety of policy 
provisions, including the extension of Good Neighbor Authority (GNA) to 
the Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge System. Arkansas 
has had success implementing GNA with the USFS, primarily using funds 
to remove invasive feral hogs from national forest lands. Removal of 
feral hogs reduces negative impacts to important habitats and protects 
ground-nesting birds such as turkey and quail from nest disturbance and 
predation.
    This bill provides another opportunity for states and NGO 
conservation partners to leverage our efforts in support of the 
National Wildlife Refuge System. This is another example of helping to 
stretch federal investments. By creating an opportunity to share 
resources to deliver habitat conservation, and in return any proceeds 
are returned to additional habitat management efforts, there exists an 
opportunity to create a cycle of conservation where active management 
leads to additional active management efforts.
    The bill also proposes to improve the efficiency of environmental 
reviews related to national forest management plans, codifies the 
Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances (CCAA), and would 
authorize state fish and wildlife agencies to take on greater 
responsibilities related to species recovery plans for federally listed 
species, for which they still have legal obligations. Since the ESA 
provisions in title 6 are voluntary for states to participate in, we 
don't believe it imposes new requirements on any state. Those that see 
value in participating can benefit from additional flexibility and 
authority to help recover federally listed species, as well as 
candidate species and species that are petitioned for listing. States 
have well-established, trusting relationships with partners and private 
landowners, which can help ensure conservation work is done where it is 
most needed. It's important to remember that even with the Federal 
listing of a species, states continue to have an obligation to recover 
and manage species as required by law.
    CCAAs are voluntary agreements between government and landowners 
that help address the needs of at-risk species before listings are 
required. Along with financial assistance, states use CCAAs to partner 
with landowners and incentive conservation, giving landowners 
regulatory certainty and helping keep species from needing to be listed 
under the ESA. Conservation can only be successful if we work together. 
If barriers are identified, let's remove them so that the ultimate 
measure of success--species delisting and recovery, and preventing the 
need to list in the first place--can be realized.
    A significant barrier to getting projects on the ground is the 2015 
Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. United States Forest Service 
(``Cottonwood'') decision, which requires the U.S. Forest Service 
(USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to reinitiate consultation 
at a forest or land management plan level with the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration when ``new information'' relating to the ESA is 
discovered. Until 2015, and again since 2018, new information was 
considered and accounted for at the project level. The temporary fix 
passed by Congress in 2018 expired last year, so legislative change is 
necessary to return the ESA to status quo and allow projects to move 
forward without costly and burdensome review processes.
    I would be remiss today if I did not also thank Representative 
Debbie Dingell for her support for state fish and wildlife agencies. 
She raised awareness of the decline of thousands of nongame fish and 
wildlife species and has been a champion for the need to support state 
fish and wildlife agencies in their efforts to conserve the full array 
of fish and wildlife.
    In closing, congressionally mandated State Wildlife Action Plans 
are scientifically-based blueprints that can guide strategic 
investment, resulting in less random acts of conservation. While state 
fish and wildlife agencies will continue to advocate for the need for 
sustained and dedicated funding to implement these plans, we greatly 
appreciate Chairman Westerman's commitment and passion for voluntary 
and cooperative conservation, and his support for state fish and 
wildlife management activities in America's Wildlife Habitat 
Conservation Act. We acknowledge the challenges of advancing 
legislation that calls for establishing new funding and appreciate his 
willingness to take on that challenge.
    Finally, should there be a delay in passing this Act, we would urge 
Congress and appropriators to provide state and tribal agencies with 
additional funding through the STWG program to accelerate the 
conservation and restoration of SGCN. Time is not on our side and the 
likelihood that more species will be added to the endangered species 
list is growing.
    Once again, thank you Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and 
members of the Committee for giving me the opportunity to testify, and 
I look forward to answering your questions.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. I now recognize Director Bronson for 
5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF RYAN BRONSON, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, 
        ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK FOUNDATION, MISSOULA, MONTANA

    Mr. Bronson. Thank you, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member 
Huffman, and members of the Subcommittee. I am Ryan Bronson, 
Director of Government Affairs for the Rocky Mountain Elk 
Foundation.
    The Elk Foundation is a 225,000-member non-profit 
conservation organization with a mission to ensure the future 
of elk, other wildlife, their habitat, and our hunting 
heritage. We are headquartered in Missoula, Montana. Since our 
founding in 1984, we have helped conserve and enhance more than 
8.9 million acres, and improved access to over a million-and-a-
half acres. Our 500 chapters raised money in communities across 
the country to conserve the public lands and wildlife that are 
impacted by the legislation you are discussing today.
    My organization represents hunters, and we are proud of the 
role hunters have played in restoring America's wildlife for 
the past century and more. Since the passage of the Pittman-
Robertson Act in 1937, state fish and wildlife agencies have 
received over $27 billion. Today, 60 percent of state wildlife 
budgets are from hunting and fishing licenses and other outdoor 
recreation revenue.
    The America's Wildlife Habitat Conservation Act supplements 
our contributions as sportsmen by providing state agencies and 
tribes with a downpayment of up to $300 million annually to 
recover imperiled species. Investing in conservation efforts on 
the front end can prevent Federal threatened and endangered 
listing decisions and the regulatory burden and costs 
associated with those decisions down the road. Rocky Mountain 
Elk Foundation works closely with state fish and wildlife 
agencies, and we appreciate that this bill supports their good 
work.
    Title VI of the bill directs Federal agencies to establish 
incremental recovery targets for threatened species, and allow 
states to gradually assume management authority when those 
targets are met. Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act 
already permits this, but agencies rarely use it. Doing so, 
could lower the temperature on highly-contested delisting 
decisions and empower state wildlife agencies to achieve 
recovery.
    States successfully manage most species, and they can be 
counted on to play a bigger role with threatened species. Elk 
benefit from diversity and actively-managed forests, as do most 
wildlife. Actively-managed forests provide diverse age 
structures of trees and diverse habitat that provide for the 
various life cycle stages of many species.
    In addition, managed forests are more resilient to weather, 
insect outbreaks, and catastrophic wildfire. The Good Neighbor 
Authority has increased the Forest Service's capacity to manage 
our forests by partnering with states, counties, and tribes to 
expand and expedite management across priority landscapes. We 
support the expansion of Good Neighbor Authority to wildlife 
refuges and recreation services, as proposed in Title III.
    Unfortunately, litigious special interests have weaponized 
the Endangered Species Act to delay many wildfire prevention 
and habitat management projects. The Ninth Circuit Cottonwood 
Environmental Law Center v. U.S. Forest decision, commonly 
known as the Cottonwood Decision, established a new criteria 
for the Forest Service to re-initiate consultation on already 
completed forest plans. The agency has repeatedly testified 
that this duplicative consultation requirement has no 
conservation benefit.
    Further, this decision conflicted with the previous Tenth 
Circuit ruling and a similar 2004 Supreme Court decision 
regarding BLM plans.
    Cottonwood case law has already delayed hundreds of 
projects leading to catastrophic wildfires that have destroyed 
lives, property, homes, and important wildlife habitat. There 
is an urgency to address this issue. The 2018 temporary partial 
fix expired 1 year ago. The Forest Service previously estimated 
that failure to enact a permanent legislative fix would create 
an initial consultation workload of 187 taxa across 36 national 
forests in the Ninth Circuit alone, taking up to 10 years to 
complete and diverting millions away from high-priority 
projects.
    Reversing the Cottonwood Decision has bipartisan support. 
The Obama administration appealed the decision in 2016. The 
Trump administration proposed a rule to resolve this issue, and 
the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee passed this 
bill by unanimous consent last fall. The Rocky Mountain Elk 
Foundation strongly supports Title V of H.R. 7408 that would 
finally resolve this issue.
    Again, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation thanks the 
Committee for the opportunity to be here today, and we look 
forward to your questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Bronson follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Ryan Bronson, Director of Government Affairs, 
                     Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

    Chairman Bentz and Members of the Committee. I am Ryan Bronson, 
Director of Government Affairs for the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. 
The Elk Foundation is a 225,000-member non-profit conservation 
organization with a mission to ensure the future of elk, other 
wildlife, their habitat, and our hunting heritage. We are headquartered 
in Missoula, Montana.
    Since our founding in 1984 we have helped conserve and enhance more 
than 8.9 million acres and improved access to over 1.5 million acres. 
Our 500 chapters raise money in communities across the country to 
conserve the public lands and wildlife that are impacted by the 
legislation you are discussing today.
    RMEF believes strongly that Hunting Is Conservation. Hunters know 
firsthand that stewardship of the land goes hand-in-hand with 
maintaining wildlife--and our own way of life. That is why sportsmen 
proudly bear the responsibility of providing the most significant and 
sustainable source of funding for wildlife. Thanks to passage of the 
Pittman-Robertson Act in 1937 state fish and game agencies across 
America have received over $27 billion in Wildlife Restoration Act 
funding, and 60% of state wildlife budgets are from hunting and fishing 
licenses and other outdoor recreation generated revenue.
    H.R. 7408, the America's Wildlife Habitat Conservation Act, 
supplements our contributions by providing state agencies and tribes 
with a downpayment of up to $300 million annually to recover imperiled 
species. Investing in these conservation efforts on the front-end can 
prevent federal threatened or endangered listing decisions, and the 
regulatory burden and costs associated with those decisions, down the 
road. Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation works closely with state fish and 
game agencies, and we appreciate that H.R. 7408 supports their good 
work.
    From sage grouse to grizzly bears, state fish and game agencies 
have championed the recovery of some of our most iconic species despite 
having no assurance these efforts will yield a regulatory outcome. The 
federal government should incentivize good faith efforts, but instead, 
states are often left demoralized by regulatory barriers, bureaucratic 
processes, and lengthy court battles that confuse management on the 
ground, discourage future recovery initiatives, and provide no benefit 
to the species themselves.
    Title 6 of H.R. 7408 directs federal agencies to establish 
incremental recovery targets for threatened species and allow states to 
gradually assume management authority as those targets are met. This 
title also ensures federal wildlife experts have the full-suite of 
wildlife management tools available to use at their discretion to 
conserve threatened species. These provisions affirm an existing, 
though rarely used, authority to manage threatened species as Congress 
originally intended.
    This approach to threatened species management has the potential to 
lower the temperature on numerous highly-contested delisting decisions. 
We anticipate social tolerance for listed species would increase and 
litigation would decrease as a result. More importantly, the regulatory 
incentives and flexibilities and the empowering of state agencies would 
place more imperiled species on the road to recovery.
    Elk benefit from diverse and actively managed forests, as do most 
wildlife. Actively managed forests provide diverse age structures of 
trees, and diverse habitat that provides for the various life cycle 
stages of many species. In addition, managed forests are more resilient 
to weather, insect outbreaks and catastrophic wildfire.
    The Good Neighbor Authority has increased the Forest Service's 
capacity to manage our forests by partnering with States, counties, and 
tribes to expand and expedite management across priority landscapes. We 
support the expansion of this authority to wildlife refuges and 
recreation services as proposed in title 3.
    Unfortunately, litigious special interests having weaponized the 
Endangered Species Act to delay many wildfire-prevention and habitat 
management projects. The 9th Circuit Cottonwood Environmental Law 
Center v. US Forest Service decision (aka. Cottonwood) established a 
new criteria for the Forest Service to reinitiate consultation on 
already completed forest plans. The agency has repeatedly testified 
that this duplicative consultation requirement has no conservation 
benefit. Further, this decision conflicted with a previous 10th Circuit 
ruling and a similar 2004 Supreme Court decision regarding BLM plans. 
Cottonwood caselaw has already delayed hundreds of projects, leading to 
catastrophic wildfires that have destroyed lives, property, homes, and 
important wildlife habitat.
    For example, the Stonewall project in Montana's Helena-Lewis and 
Clark Forest would have benefited elk and other wildlife, but was 
delayed by Cottonwood litigation. In 2017 the Park Creek and Arrastra 
wildfires burned over half of the proposed treatment area with 
intensities that damaged some of the soils in the area. This was 
economically and ecologically costly.
    In April 2022, the Hermit's Peak Fire in New Mexico began as a 
prescribed fire that got out of control. The Forest Service's Wildfire 
Review Report revealed hazardous fuel reduction treatment was delayed 
from September 2019 to October 2020 by a Cottonwood-related injunction. 
The subsequent 341,000-acre fire has not been good for threatened 
Mexican Spotted Owls, elk, other wildlife, or people.
    There is an urgency to address this issue. The 2018 temporary, 
partial fix expired one year ago. The Forest Service previously 
estimated that failure to enact a full and permanent legislative fix, 
would create an initial consultation workload of 187 taxa across 36 
national forests in the ninth circuit alone, taking up to 10 years to 
complete and diverting millions away from high priority projects.
    Reversing the Cottonwood decision has bipartisan support. The Obama 
administration appealed the decision in 2016, the Trump administration 
proposed a rule to resolve this issue, and the Senate Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee passed the bill by unanimous consent last 
fall.
    Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation strongly supports title 5 of H.R. 
7408 that would finally resolve this issue.
    Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation thanks the Committee for the 
opportunity to participate today.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. I now recognize Chair Olson for 5 
minutes.

     STATEMENT OF GLENN OLSON, DONAL O'BRIEN CHAIR IN BIRD 
 CONSERVATION AND PUBLIC POLICY, NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY, NEW 
                         YORK, NEW YORK

    Mr. Olson. Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and 
Chairman Westerman, thank you for the opportunity to testify 
here today. And may I just say it is an honor to be with this 
panel? You have a great group of people here. We have a lot in 
common with, and are partners with, each of these organizations 
they represent.
    Audubon's mission is to protect birds and the places they 
need today and tomorrow. We have more than 2 million members 
and supporters, 510 local chapters in most of your districts 
around the country, and 55 nature centers across the country, 
including Little Rock, Arkansas.
    I also want to take the opportunity to thank Chairman 
Westerman and his entire team for what they bring to 
conservation, and how accessible they are to not only our 
national staff, but our state program in Arkansas and our 
Little Rock, Arkansas Audubon Society.
    And I have been told on good authority that Chairman 
Westerman loves woodpeckers, and we have yet to be out in the 
field with you looking at red-cockaded woodpeckers or pileated 
woodpeckers, but we look forward to that in the future.
    In 2015, Audubon was asked to join a panel established by 
the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies to consider the 
current system of conservation funding. I joined the blue 
ribbon panel, along with leaders from the business sector, 
hunting and fishing groups, private landowners, state fish and 
wildlife agencies, and other conservation groups. This non-
partisan panel was chaired by John Morris, the founder of Bass 
Pro Shops and the owner of Cabela's, and David Freudenthal, who 
was the former Governor of Wyoming.
    All the participants on the panel had a common goal: to 
find the most effective and efficient method for funding 
conservation that would guarantee the long-term health and 
survival of wildlife species, from songbirds to big game. We 
spent over a year together developing our recommendations.
    After considering a multitude of recommendations and 
options, including from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the 
National Association of Realtors, the panel recommended that 
Congress dedicate $1.3 billion annually to the Wildlife 
Conservation Restoration Program under the Pittman-Robertson 
Act. The financial investment, the panel determined, was 
critical and necessary to carry out the congressionally-
mandated State Wildlife Action Plans, and this funding was 
critical to recover and conserve 12,000 identified at-risk 
Species of Greatest Conservation Need.
    Implementing the panel's recommendation would offer 
proactive and cost-effective support in preventing species from 
becoming threatened or endangered through long-term, 
collaborative, and voluntary conservation. And as history tells 
us, most species can't be recovered in less than 5 years.
    Emerging from the panel's recommendation was the Recovering 
America's Wildlife Act, legislation that was mentioned earlier. 
It was sponsored by Congressman Debbie Dingell and initially by 
Congressman Don Young, the former Chairman of this Committee. 
It passed with bipartisan support in the 117th Congress.
    We are in the midst of a biodiversity crisis, which is 
having a profound effect on people and their communities. North 
America has lost 3 billion birds since 1970, about one in four 
birds, with widespread declines in all other groups of birds 
except for waterfowl, which are being intentionally managed 
through the NAWCA program and doing very well.
    Birds are experiencing ongoing threats from habitat loss 
and degradation, climate change, and many other challenges. 
State Wildlife Action Plans have identified more than 400 at-
risk bird species with strong conservation needs. Recovery of 
dwindling populations to prevent more species from becoming 
endangered and threatened requires sustained dedicated 
investment.
    Birds are a major economic driver in communities across the 
country. Bird watching brings in significant revenue to local 
economies. The latest survey by the Fish and Wildlife Service 
found that 96 million people in the United States engage in 
bird watching and contribute over $100 billion to local 
economies.
    And I told Congressman Bentz before the hearing started 
that we have had this wintering bald eagle festival in Klamath 
County for over 35 years in the dead of winter, after duck 
season is closed, and how important that has been that the 
Chamber of Commerce, Willamette Industries, all the hotels and 
restaurants, gas stations, and we appreciate the Presidents Day 
holiday weekend and the Audubon Bird Festival going on. Those 
are happening across the country, those kinds of events.
    America's Wildlife Habitat Conservation Act will provide 
funding with a goal of conserving and restoring wildlife 
habitat, and we appreciate the Act's goal of engaging private 
landowners and cooperative conservation on their forests, 
ranches, and farms. We need that approach.
    This legislation, the America's Wildlife Habitat 
Conservation Act, would provide $300 million to states and $20 
million to tribes annually over 5 years. This is only a 
fraction of the blue ribbon panel's recommendation in dedicated 
annual funding, and it would require reauthorization every 5 
years, which could cause inconsistency in funding levels at the 
state levels as they look to develop long-term conservation 
plans.
    We also think that the tribal investments are critical to 
wildlife conservation and management. Native Americans, Alaskan 
Natives, and Native Hawaiians manage an area of wildlife 
habitat almost as large as California, and they do so without 
the benefit of----
    Mr. Bentz. Mr. Olson, I am sorry to interrupt your 
testimony, but your time is expired.
    Mr. Olson. Oh, I am sorry.
    Mr. Bentz. That is fine.
    Mr. Olson. OK, thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Olson follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Glenn Olson, Donal O'Brien Chair in Bird 
                 Conservation, National Audubon Society

    Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the America's 
Wildlife Habitat Conservation Act. I am Glenn Olson, and I serve as the 
Donal O'Brien Chair in Bird Conservation at the National Audubon 
Society. Audubon's mission is to protect birds and the places they 
need, today and tomorrow. Audubon has more than two million members and 
supporters, 510 affiliated chapters and 55 nature centers across the 
country.
    In 2015, Audubon was asked to join a panel established by the 
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies to consider the current 
system of conservation funding. I joined the Blue Ribbon Panel along 
with leaders from the business sector, hunting and sportfishing groups, 
private landowners, state fish and wildlife agencies, and other 
conservation groups. The panel was chaired by John Morris, the founder 
of Bass Pro Shops, and David Freudenthal, the former Governor of 
Wyoming. All the participants on the Panel had a common goal to find 
the most effective and efficient method of funding conservation that 
would guarantee the long-term health and survival of wildlife species--
from songbirds to big game.
    We spent over a year together developing our recommendations. We 
held a DC hearing that included positive feedback on our approach from 
both the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of 
Realtors. The concept of pro-actively and intentionally sustaining 
wildlife populations so that future listings of threatened and 
endangered species would not be necessary was well-received as a sound 
approach to guide investments.
    After considering a multitude of options, the panel recommended 
that Congress dedicate $1.3 billion annually to the Wildlife 
Conservation Restoration Program under the Pittman-Robertson Act--the 
financial investment the Panel determined was critical and necessary to 
carry out Congressionally-mandated State Wildlife Action Plans and 
recover and conserve 12,000 identified species of greatest conservation 
need. Implementing the Panel's recommendation would offer proactive and 
cost-effective support in preventing species from becoming threatened 
or endangered, through long-term collaborative and voluntary 
conservation.
    Emerging from the Panel's recommendations was the Recovering 
America's Wildlife Act, legislation sponsored by Congresswoman Dingell 
with significant bipartisan support, and which passed the House in the 
117th Congress. This legislation was supported by Audubon and a broad 
and diverse coalition of supporters and stakeholders--similar in 
breadth and scope to the parties who engaged with the Blue Ribbon 
Panel. I would like to thank Congresswoman Dingell and the other 
Members of the Subcommittee who supported that legislation for your 
efforts on this important issue.
    We are in the midst of a biodiversity crisis, and no species is 
being spared, which has profound effects on people and communities. 
North America has lost nearly 3 billion birds since 1970--or about 1 in 
4 birds--with widespread declines across nearly all groups of birds, 
including a 40% decline in Western Meadowlarks, the iconic state bird 
of Wyoming, Oregon, Montana, Kansas, and others.
    Birds are experiencing ongoing threats from habitat loss and 
degradation, climate change, and many other challenges. Habitat loss 
affects a bird's ability to find food, water, and safe places to raise 
their young and migrate. Even common backyard birds are at risk.
    Wildlife Action Plans have identified more than 400 species of 
birds with conservation needs. Recovery of dwindling populations to 
prevent more species from becoming threatened and endangered requires 
sustained, dedicated investment, as populations can take decades to 
bounce back to sustainable levels.
    Birds are a major economic driver in communities across the 
country. Birdwatching brings in significant revenue to local economies. 
The latest survey by the Fish and Wildlife Service found that 96 
million people in the U.S. engaged in birdwatching in 2022, 
contributing $100 billion to the U.S. economy every year. Birds also 
provide cultural significance, and critically important and valuable 
pest control to agriculture and forestry.
    For this reason, legislation that meets the moment of the 
biodiversity and wildlife conservation crisis is key. We appreciate the 
intent of the America's Wildlife Habitat Conservation Act to provide 
funding toward the goal of conserving and restoring wildlife habitat. 
And we appreciate the Act's goal of engaging private landowners in 
cooperative conservation on their forests, ranches and farms--we need 
this approach.
    However, the proposed funding levels and sunset of these 
investments, coupled with the rescission of Inflation Reduction Act and 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act funding, and the inclusion of 
other policy measures, gives us concern and therefore Audubon is unable 
to support the bill as currently written.
    The legislation provides $300 million to States and $20 million to 
Tribes annually for five years. This funding is only a fraction of the 
Blue Ribbon Panel's recommended $1.3 billion in dedicated annual 
funding. The legislation would require reauthorization every five 
years, which could cause inconsistency in funding levels and 
uncertainty for multi-year conservation. A consistent funding source is 
needed to ensure the effectiveness of these projects.
    Tribal investments are critical to wildlife conservation and 
management. Native Americans, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians 
manage an area of the nation's wildlife habitat almost as large as 
California without the benefit of revenue from hunting and fishing 
license sales and federal tax revenue that state wildlife agencies are 
able to utilize. Under the America's Wildlife Habitat Conservation Act, 
Tribes would receive only $20 million for the next five years compared 
to $97.5 million annually under the Recovering America's Wildlife Act.
    The legislation also rescinds critical funds for the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Bureau of Reclamation. 
The rescission of these funds would affect important freshwater and 
coastal restoration and aging infrastructure upgrades--which are 
critical for conserving natural resources that communities depend on.
    In closing, we need the pillars of what the Blue Ribbon Panel 
recommended is necessary to protect thousands of at-risk species; and 
which was reflected in the Recovering America's Wildlife Act. That 
legislation incorporated the needs and concerns of a broad, diverse 
coalition of stakeholders, and reflects years of collaboration and 
partnership. It has enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress and deep 
support among states, Tribes, and the conservation and business 
communities.
    We look forward to working with the Subcommittee to build on 
today's discussion and pursue bipartisan measures that align with the 
recommendations and findings of the Blue Ribbon Panel, and that 
effectively address the biodiversity crisis that is driving alarming 
declines in wildlife populations that we hold near and dear.

                                 ______
                                 

                                 *****

The following documents were submitted as supplements to Mr. 
Olsen's testimony.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


.epsThe full document is available for viewing at:

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II13/20240306/116892/HHRG-
118-II13-20240306-SD012.pdf

                                ------                                

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

.epsThe full document is available for viewing at:

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II13/20240306/116892/HHRG-
118-II13-20240306-SD013.pdf

                                ------                                

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

.epsThe full document is available for viewing at:

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II13/20240306/116892/HHRG-
118-II13-20240306-SD015.pdf

                                ------                                


    Mr. Bentz. No, thank you. I now recognize CEO Tenny for 5 
minutes.

   STATEMENT OF DAVID P. TENNY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL 
           ALLIANCE OF FOREST OWNERS, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Tenny. Good morning, friends. Thank you for inviting me 
to participate this morning. I want to focus my attention today 
on why it is so important for all of us to work together to 
advance voluntary, proactive species conservation as the 
prevailing paradigm for conservation on lands, private lands, 
everywhere.
    Back in the 1990s, I was a brand-new forestry staffer for 
then-Congressman Wally Herger. The prevailing issue of the day? 
The northern spotted owl. My first impression coming in the 
door was this was a war between owls and people, and I had been 
enlisted to defend the people. Well, I had just completed my 
first woods tour in Wally's district in Northern California 
when, on a Thursday, I had dinner with then-President of the 
California Forestry Association, Gilbert Murray. The following 
Monday he was blown up by the Unabomber. So, there I was, 
wondering had I just made a terrible mistake? What had I got 
myself into? How could it be possible that a bird could be the 
source of so much conflict and tragedy?
    Fight or flight kicked in. My initial instinct was to 
fight. But then I met a remarkable group of people from the 
small town of Quincy, California. Quincy was at that time the 
epicenter of conflict over the California spotted owl, which is 
a close cousin to the northern spotted owl. A few years before, 
local leaders from opposing viewpoints met in the Quincy 
Library to resolve their differences. They chose the library 
because it was the only place in town where they wouldn't yell 
at each other.
    That was the humble beginning of what became known as the 
Quincy Library Group, or the QLG. The QLG was one of the first 
local forest collaboratives that sought to replace conflict 
with cooperation and collaboration. Eventually, QLG earned its 
own legislation, the Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and 
Economic Stability Act. That was the first bill I ever wrote as 
a member of Congressional staff. Well, the bill passed 429 to 1 
in the House, and then it passed unanimous consent in the 
Senate, and President Clinton signed it into law. But this was 
an inflection point for me.
    I saw a group of good, ordinary people rise above conflict, 
and show the nation that voluntary collaboration cannot only 
conserve owls, but also change their culture in ways that could 
benefit species and communities everywhere.
    So, let's fast forward a few decades. For nearly 8 years, 
NAFO, the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement 
(NCASI), and the Fish and Wildlife Service have collaborated 
with other partners at the state and local level on a new 
approach to species conservation. We call it the Wildlife 
Conservation Initiative, or the WCI. Like QLG, the WCI seeks to 
empower ordinary people like us to do extraordinary things to 
benefit species and communities everywhere.
    The WCI has a very simple objective that is to conserve 
common, at-risk, and listed species on private working forests 
through sustainable forest management. It also operates very 
simply. We jointly identify priority species that need our 
forests for their habitat. We collect field data on those 
species, and then we decide together how to use sustainable 
forest management to conserve those species. Today, the WCI is 
a nationwide effort, and it is setting a standard for 
collaboration between private landowners, Federal and state 
agencies, and local stakeholders.
    NAFO member companies have committed 44 million acres to 
this effort. To put that in perspective, that is more acres 
than Virginia and West Virginia combined. Last year, NAFO, 
NCASI, and the Service signed a programmatic MOU to apply the 
WCI nationwide. A few weeks ago, we signed another MOU with 
AFWA to be a companion to what we are doing with the Service, 
and bring us all together in a common effort.
    A wonderful example of our success is the gopher tortoise 
in the South. It is a species that has habitat upon which 350 
other species rely for their survival. In 2022, the Service 
found that it was unnecessary to list the eastern population 
segment of the gopher tortoise because of the data that was 
provided through the WCI. So, it is doing what we want it to 
do. It is conserving common, at-risk species and, in this case, 
preventing the need for listing. It is showing that proactive 
collaboration is more powerful than waiting for reactive 
regulation.
    Though the most important and enduring thing that is 
happening is the change in our culture. And we are finding that 
culture is the most important aspect of the WCI. In fact, that 
is what we are doing in California right now. It is because of 
this culture that we have been able to conserve the California 
spotted owl and make it unnecessary for listing, which brings 
us to the purpose of this hearing.
    We welcome the efforts of this Committee, Chairman 
Westerman, and his colleagues to try to advance this concept 
forward. We welcome the efforts of others to push RAWA forward. 
These are good ideas. We think we can work together to find 
solutions that will advance this paradigm, and we look forward 
to doing that with you. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Tenny follows:]
   Prepared Statement of David P. Tenny, National Alliance of Forest 
                                 Owners

    Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and distinguished Members 
of the Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries Subcommittee, on behalf of the 
National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO), thank you for the 
opportunity to testify on private working forests and the important 
role they play conserving at-risk, threatened, and endangered species.
    NAFO is a national advocacy organization advancing Federal policies 
that ensure private working forests provide clean air, clean water, 
wildlife habitat, and jobs through sustainable practices and strong 
markets. NAFO member companies own and manage 44 million acres of 
private working forests across the U.S. NAFO's membership also includes 
State associations and national associations representing tens of 
millions of additional acres. Our members embrace a culture of 
stewardship for their forests and the wildlife that depend on them.
    Since the passage of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 50 years ago, 
species conservation has frequently mired stakeholders in inefficient 
and ineffective conflict, especially on Federal lands. However, decades 
of experience have proven that, on privately owned lands, conservation 
efforts are most effective when landowners, Federal and State agencies, 
and stakeholders identify shared conservation objectives and 
proactively and voluntarily work together to accomplish them. Such 
collaboration has built the trust necessary to innovate on better and 
more enduring approaches to species conservation and has increased our 
understanding of conservation at both the local and landscape level.
    As we consider our course for the next 50 years of species 
conservation under the ESA, we would be wise to draw from what our 
experience has taught us--culture is more powerful than law or policy, 
and a culture of voluntary, collaborative conservation will always be 
more effective than reactive regulation and conflict. That is the focus 
of my testimony today.
Private Working Forest Owners as Conservation Partners

    Across the country, NAFO members join other private working forest 
owners in meeting some of the highest sustainable forest management 
standards in the world. Wildlife habitat, clean water, clean air, 
carbon mitigation benefits, long-term forest health, and rural 
prosperity are all well-established outcomes of sustainable forest 
management. That is why private forest management in the U.S. leads the 
world in quality and productivity across a variety of performance 
measures.
    Private working forests--or those managed to provide a sustainable 
supply of wood and fiber for homes, building construction, and over 
5,000 consumer products that we use every day--are critical to 
successful species conservation because of the scale of private 
ownership in the United States. Forty-seven percent of forests in the 
U.S. are privately owned. In some areas of the country, 80% or more of 
our forests are privately owned. NAFO members invest substantially in 
maintaining habitat for terrestrial and aquatic species as a 
fundamental management objective. Forest owners also invest in 
collaborative research to understand how sustainable forest management 
can further benefit the conservation of both game and non-game wildlife 
species, particularly at-risk wildlife species.
    Multiple approaches to wildlife conservation can work together to 
provide conservation benefits. At a baseline, sustainable forest 
management promotes forest health and resilience, which supports all 
forest-dependent species; and forest certification provides additional 
assurances of sustainable forest management implementation. Beyond that 
baseline, NAFO members also participate in conservation projects and 
programs to conserve a wide variety of species. Nearly 11 million acres 
of NAFO member land are participating in conservation programs or 
projects. Together, these complementary layers of conservation have 
become standard operating procedure for NAFO members, proactively 
conserving species before they require emergency conservation measures 
or regulatory intervention.
The Importance of Sustainable Forest Management for Creating Diverse 
        Forest Types

    Private working forests provide habitat for thousands of common, 
at-risk, and listed species. Sixty percent of at-risk species depend on 
private working forests for survival. Through sustainable forest 
management, private forest owners create a mosaic of interconnected 
forest conditions. This variability across the landscape provides a 
diversity of high-quality species habitat.
    For example, sustainable forest management creates healthy young 
forests, characterized by open fields and low, thick brush. Young 
forests are home to species of conservation concern such as Kirtland's 
warbler, the New England cottontail rabbit, and the American woodcock. 
Other wildlife species that depend on young forest for at least part of 
their habitat requirements include wild turkey, grouse, elk, white-
tailed deer, eastern cottontail rabbit, black bear, and native 
pollinators like honeybees and butterflies.
    Sustainable forest management also provides open-canopy forests, 
characterized by widely spaced trees that allow sunlight to reach the 
forest floor. Several leafy plant species that provide food and habitat 
for many at-risk species require a lot of sunlight to grow and thrive 
in these conditions, Examples of at-risk species that depend on these 
conditions are the gopher tortoise, Louisiana pine snake, southern hog-
nosed snake, and gopher frog. Numerous at-risk plant species that need 
additional sunlight are also found in open-canopy forests.
    Sustainable forest management protects rivers and streams by 
leaving a buffer along watercourses called Streamside Management Zones 
(SMZs). Forest landowners implement State-based Best Management 
Practices (BMPs) in SMZs during harvests to protect water quality. SMZs 
also facilitate wildlife travel and include riparian species, providing 
further habitat diversity on the landscape. Additionally, these 
riparian forest buffers filter sediment from runoff after rain and 
snow, keeping the water in streams and rivers clean for aquatic 
species, like at-risk mollusks and fish.
The Wildlife Conservation Initiative (WCI)

    Eight years ago, NAFO member companies established the Wildlife 
Conservation Initiative (WCI) as a voluntary, collaborative partnership 
to conserve common, at-risk, and listed fish and wildlife species on 
private working forests. This groundbreaking initiative is building a 
culture of trust and collaboration between regulators and landowners.
    Last year, NAFO, the National Council on Air and Stream Improvement 
(NCASI), and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) signed a 
programmatic Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to implement the WCI 
nationwide. A weeks ago, NAFO and the Association of Fish & Wildlife 
Agencies (AFWA) signed a companion MOU to connect NAFO member 
companies, the USFWS, and State agencies in a common WCI effort.
    What began as regional collaboration between NAFO member companies 
and USFWS field offices has now grown into a national, agency-wide 
initiative and a model for engaging forest owners, Federal and State 
agencies, and other stakeholders in effective voluntary species 
conservation. The WCI is demonstrating the value of active forest 
management as a wildlife conservation tool.
    The WCI operates simply. NAFO member companies partner with NCASI, 
the USFWS, State agencies, and other collaborators to identify priority 
species and collect and share field data on the species and how 
sustainable forest management affects them. In some cases, data helps 
to identify better management approaches to maintain and improve 
conservation benefits.
    The reduction of regulatory risk to landowners, the growing culture 
of trust between landowners and regulators, and the formal recognition 
of the conservation value of sustainable forest management serve as 
powerful incentives for private forest owners to engage in 
collaborative conservation projects through the WCI. NAFO members have 
partnered with researchers and regulators through the WCI to conduct 
much-needed research on mussels in Louisiana, pollinators in 
California, wood turtles in Michigan, habitat needs across landscapes 
in Alabama and Florida, Humboldt martens in Oregon, and migratory birds 
across the entire Eastern Seaboard.
Collaborative Success Outcomes

    Collaborative conservation through the WCI delivers positive 
outcomes for wildlife while reducing the regulatory burden on private 
landowners.
    The USFWS has cited the benefits of sustainable forest management, 
private land access for researchers through the WCI, and forest 
certification as significant contributions to species conservation, 
often negating the need for further Federal action. One example of WCI 
success is the gopher tortoise.
    The gopher tortoise is a keystone species, benefiting more than 350 
other species--including snakes, insects, frogs, and owls--that all 
depend on tortoise burrows and surrounding habitat to survive. In 2022, 
the USFWS found that the eastern population of the gopher tortoise did 
not warrant listing. Data and habitat information provided by NAFO 
members showed that the open-canopy forest conditions on sustainably 
managed private working forests across the range of the gopher tortoise 
had provided high-quality habitat that conserved more gopher tortoises 
than scientists originally anticipated. The survey work leading to the 
USFWS decision was conducted through the WCI.
    A second example of WCI success is the red tree vole--a small, 
furry mammal that nests in forest canopies and feeds almost exclusively 
on Douglas-fir needles. Just a few weeks ago, the USFWS decided not to 
list the red tree vole under the ESA and credited the WCI as a factor 
in its decision. The WCI identified the red tree vole as a species of 
common interest, and the WCI supported the resultant inventory work 
with funding. Ultimately, the USFWS' Species Status Assessment cited 
valuable information from NCASI and WCI researchers as the USFWS made 
its ``not warranted'' decision.
    Through our ground-breaking WCI work, we are developing new and 
unprecedented tools and approaches that were not possible eight years 
ago. For example, a NAFO member company will soon conduct a zero-
baseline or ``no-risk'' reintroduction of a listed species, the 
flatwood salamander, on its land in the Florida panhandle. 
Additionally, we are working with the USFWS on a pioneering cooperative 
agreement to provide data and research on several bat species, 
including the northern long-eared bat. The agreement will allow the 
USFWS to conduct surveys and research on private forests owned by NAFO 
members who volunteer to participate and will safeguard covered forest 
management activities.
    These conservation achievements, and many others, are only possible 
because of a fundamental, profound culture shift within the forest-
owner community and the State and Federal agencies. Trust and 
collaboration are replacing cynicism and conflict. Through the WCI, we 
are demonstrating that culture is more powerful than law or policy and 
that proactive collaboration is far more effective than reactive 
regulation.
Collaborative Conservation Leads to Enduring Success

    In the interest of advancing enduring conservation solutions, like 
the WCI, we support every legislative effort to make voluntary, 
collaborative conservation more accessible to, and effective for, all 
private landowners, including the America's Wildlife Habitat 
Conservation Act and the Recovering America's Wildlife Act.

    A number of provisions in the America's Wildlife Habitat 
Conservation Act, which the Committee is considering today, help 
advance voluntary, collaborative conservation on private working lands. 
These include:

     Providing funding to State fish and wildlife agencies and 
            tribes. States and Tribes can use such funding for 
            voluntary, collaborative conservation work with willing 
            landowners.

     Waiving public disclosure requirements when landowners 
            voluntarily share species data with USFWS. Protecting 
            proprietary data and information will encourage landowners 
            to provide sensitive, yet vital data on threatened and 
            endangered species more freely with their Federal partners. 
            Such data is crucial to Species Status Assessments and 
            listing decisions. Protection from disclosure will also 
            enable more targeted and robust collaborative conservation 
            efforts to occur on private land.

     Precluding critical habitat designations from occurring on 
            private lands with tailored land management plans. 
            Extending Sikes Act authority applied to Department of 
            Defense land to private landowners willing to follow the 
            same process and abide by the same criteria will enable 
            private landowners to work with the USFWS to develop land 
            management plans to protect listed species in ways that are 
            significantly more efficient and impactful than simply 
            designating critical habitat.

     Codifying and Expanding the Candidate Conservation 
            Agreements with Assuarances (CCAA) Program. CCAAs encourage 
            landowners to voluntarily work with the USFWS to develop 
            and implement conservation plans for declining species 
            prior to listing decisions. NAFO members have used CCAAs 
            for years and are now developing new and innovative 
            cooperative agreements with the USFWS that we believe will 
            be even more effective than CCAAs. We welcome the 
            opportunity to work with the Subcommittee staff to provide 
            technical suggestions to strengthen this section.

     Extending Good Neighbor Authority to the USFWS. Allowing 
            the USFWS to enjoy the same successes enjoyed by the Bureau 
            of Land Management and the Forest Service will benefit 
            wildlife. Authorizing the USFWS to collaborate with their 
            State, local, and Tribal partners to help improve land 
            management by leveraging more resources for habitat and 
            species recovery projects will have a significant, positive 
            impact.

Conclusion

    NAFO supports every effort that will enable private landowners to 
conserve species, prosper as land stewards, and provide other public 
benefits to communities and the Nation. We encourage Committee members 
to seek common ground and to work with their House and Senate 
colleagues to advance policy approaches that encourage and reward 
voluntary, collaborative conservation and that foster positive cultural 
change among Federal and State agencies, landowners, stakeholders, and 
affected communities across the Country.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in this hearing. 
We appreciate the Subcommittee's commitment to species conservation, 
and we stand ready as a resource to you and your staffs as we work 
together on enduring solutions for America's wildlife.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. I want to thank the witnesses for 
their testimony. We will now recognize Members for 5 minutes 
each for questions. We will begin with Congresswoman Radewagen.
    You have 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Talofa lava.
    I have a couple of questions for you, Mr. Booth. As you 
know, discussions about spending and the budget have impacted 
nearly every committee over recent months and years. One 
provision of this bill requires states to submit reports on 
results of activities carried out with the funds provided by 
this bill's programs. Can you talk about how this aligns both 
good stewardship of taxpayer resources, while also effectively 
highlighting the great work being done at the state and local 
level?
    Mr. Booth. Yes, ma'am. Thank you for the question.
    When we look at the long-term success of conservation, one 
of the resources that we believe is most important to us, 
whether we are in Arkansas or the Samoan Islands, is the 
support from the people. And we think one of the best ways to 
maintain that long-term support for conservation is by showing 
people how we are shepherding and using their taxpayer dollars.
    We try to operate, whether it is Pittman-Robertson dollars, 
or our own license fees, or in Arkansas our conservation sales 
tax dollars, we always try to utilize those with transparency 
and accountability to the public.
    Will these reporting requirements be an administrative 
burden? Maybe to some extent. But if it ensures that we can 
maintain some of the long-term support for conservation with 
the public by showing them how we are utilizing these dollars, 
and also the confidence of members from this body when it comes 
time for annual appropriations, then I think that is time and 
effort well spent.
    Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you. For my next question, Mr. Booth, 
America's Wildlife Habitat Conservation Act makes changes to 
this formula that is one-half based on the land area of a 
state, one-quarter based on a state's population, and one-
quarter based on the number of species in a state listed under 
the ESA.
    Would taking the number of listed species in a state into 
account when awarding funds, rather than solely factoring in 
population and land area, serve as a more effective way of 
awarding grant dollars to conserve wildlife?
    Mr. Booth. I think so, ma'am.
    If you look at Arkansas, compared to some of our neighbors, 
we are a lot smaller than Texas in both surface area and 
population, and we can probably say the same thing for our 
wonderful competitor, partner, and neighbor to the north, 
Missouri. So, yes, we think that looking at what the actual 
qualitative conservation challenges every state or territory is 
up against is a good way to analyze it.
    Mrs. Radewagen. And as a follow-up, would this allow us to 
more effectively use taxpayer resources to address endangered 
and threatened species?
    Mr. Booth. I would defer to some of my other colleagues, 
ma'am, but from my perspective the answer is yes.
    If you look at the amount of taxpayer dollars that we are 
able to allocate towards this challenge right now, it is very 
low. I meant what I said in my opening remarks, that the most 
compelling reason to support H.R. 7408 is the urgency that we 
see every single day on the landscape. And we believe that is 
the case, and that H.R. 7408 would go a long way to do that.
    Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Ranking Member 
Huffman for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chair Westerman's 
press release claimed this bill ``will invest $320 million 
annually in grant funding to states for wildlife habitat 
conservation,'' and ``provides additional resources for state 
governments.'' To be clear, that is not exactly true.
    This bill doesn't invest anything because it doesn't 
appropriate any additional money. And in the unlikely event 
that it became law, anyone who thinks that this Republican 
Majority would actually appropriate $320 million without 
draconian cuts to other environmental and conservation 
programs, probably thinks that this pretend money that we have 
printed up is real, and you can go buy stuff with it.
    So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the record a 
stack of pretend money, we affectionately call it ``Bruce 
bucks,'' as evidence of the actual value of the investments 
from this legislation.
    And the interesting thing about these Bruce bucks, and 
Chair Westerman, I am feeling especially generous, so I have a 
large stack of these for you, the interesting thing about them 
is they have negative value. The Fish and Wildlife Service has 
actually done an estimate of the impact of this bill, which 
claims to increase wildlife funding. They found that it, in 
fact, decreases funding for 38 out of 56 states, territories, 
and the District of Columbia, including the state of Arkansas, 
where Mr. Westerman, I believe, has some explaining to do.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the record the 
spreadsheet of these cuts to wildlife funding in most states 
and territories.
    Mr. Bentz. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    

                                 
                                 

    Mr. Huffman. Thank you. I would like to ask the witnesses 
about the question of permanent funding, which was in 
Representative Dingell's RAWA, consistent with the blue ribbon 
panel's recommendations, versus the hollow authorization that 
we get in this bill.
    And Mr. Olson, I want to make it very simple for you. Would 
you rather have $1.3 billion of guaranteed funding every year, 
or $320 million in discretionary authorizations, which is not 
guaranteed, for 5 years and then it sunsets?
    Mr. Olson. We would prefer the $1.3 billion of dedicated 
funding annually.
    Mr. Huffman. Even if I throw in a stack of Bruce bucks?
    Mr. Olson. Yes.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Huffman. Mr. Strickler, same question for you.
    Mr. Strickler. Representative Huffman, the Department feels 
that the greater amount of dedicated funding would be better 
for long-term planning and species recovery.
    Mr. Huffman. And Mr. Booth, would you prefer $1.3 billion 
in guaranteed permanent funding over the authorization in this 
legislation? Simple question.
    Mr. Booth. We would take whatever tranche of funding makes 
its way to the state, sir.
    Mr. Huffman. All right. Mr. Strickler, whether or not 
states get the full $320 million, we know for sure that under 
this bill there are going to be some cuts: $1.4 billion 
rescinded from the IRA and IIJA. In other words, even if a 
future Congress never appropriates any money under this bill, 
those cuts are going to happen.
    What specific conservation programs at DOI would get 
defunded to offset this legislation?
    Mr. Strickler. Representative Huffman, specifically, the 
largest amount of funding that is proposed to be rescinded in 
this bill is for the Bureau of Reclamation focused on its aging 
infrastructure program. That is funding that goes to do things 
like line canals, replace water infrastructure, and farm 
infrastructure to help with irrigation in the West. And then 
there is additional funding for their aquatic ecosystem 
restoration efforts that is rescinded along with a pot of NOAA 
money.
    Mr. Huffman. All right. Thank you. We asked NOAA a similar 
question and got a similar answer.
    The moral of the story here is this bill would pull back 
hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for wildlife and 
habitat conservation. It would rescind nearly $400 million in 
tribal wildlife priorities, including recovering endangered 
Pacific salmon, and rescind hundreds of millions for coastal 
habitat resilience, red snapper, North Atlantic right whale, 
oyster reefs, and more. Again, the bill would do more harm than 
good for wildlife.
    And to the organizations here that have either grudgingly 
or otherwise seen fit to say nice things about this bill, I 
want you to know that I get it. When the Chairman of the 
Natural Resources Committee proposes a bill, there is a certain 
amount of courtesy and deference involved. But when he tells 
you that wet stuff coming down on your head is rain, you really 
should smell it a little. It is not rain, folks.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes Congressman Duarte for 5 
minutes.
    I recognized him, but he is not here. The Chair recognizes 
Congresswoman Kiggans for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Kiggans. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am proud to co-
sponsor this important legislation to promote habitat 
conservation from the ground up by enabling our state agencies 
to take reins while providing them with the resources they need 
to do so.
    Mr. Booth, I understand that the vast majority of lands in 
your home state of Arkansas are privately owned. I represent 
the Commonwealth of Virginia, and while Virginia is home to 22 
of our nation's beautiful national parks, most of the forest 
land and working forests are privately owned, as well. This 
means that state agencies have a major role to play in 
conservation and habitat management. Can you speak to the work 
that your agency does to partner with private landowners in 
Arkansas to conserve species on the endangered species list, 
and how this bill will encourage more of that work?
    Mr. Booth. Yes, ma'am. Thank you for the question. Like 
Chairman Westerman said this morning, it was Aldo Leopold that 
taught us that the ultimate success of conservation will be how 
we reward private landowners for the public interest. We 
certainly see that ethos in H.R. 7408, and that is one of the 
reasons why we think the legislation would be a great thing for 
conservation.
    Arkansas Game and Fish Commission has had a private lands 
biologist within our agency since the 1950s. We have kind of 
reinvigorated that the past 2 years, and basically created our 
own private lands division. As we try to resource and elevate 
that division by focusing on private landowner conservation 
throughout Arkansas, which, as you mentioned, ma'am, is over 90 
percent privately owned, we see three things.
    No. 1, we see a huge need for private lands conservation 
around Species of Greatest Conservation Need.
    The second thing that we see is a tremendous amount of 
interest from landowners. People in Arkansas want to do the 
right thing for the natural resources.
    And the third thing that we see is an immense gap in 
resources. This legislation would go a very long way in filling 
that resource gap to make sure that we can maximize the human 
capital that we have in Arkansas, that passion for the natural 
resources.
    One of the ways that we see our Species of Greatest 
Conservation Need flourishing in Arkansas through private 
landowners is around quail. This was once a native ground 
nesting bird to Arkansas that has recently had some challenges. 
Through our own private lands division, our quail program, we 
get lots of landowners that are very interested in quail, and 
this legislation would help us make them more of a priority.
    Mrs. Kiggans. Thank you very much.
    And Mr. Strickler, Virginia's 2nd District is home to nine 
national wildlife refuges, including Back Bay, Great Dismal 
Swamp, and Chincoteague, all administered by your agency. It is 
obvious that the Fish and Wildlife Service understands and 
appreciates the vital role state wildlife agencies play in 
active forest and habitat management, and this bill strengthens 
the Service's contracting authority to work with non-Federal 
partners.
    Can you speak to how Title III will improve the working 
relationship between state and Federal agencies and their 
shared goal of habitat management and conservation?
    Mr. Strickler. Representative Kiggans, thank you for the 
question. It is good to see you again. As one of your 
constituents from Northampton County, Virginia, I am very 
familiar with, particularly, the wildlife refuges on the 
Eastern Shore. Fisherman's Island in the Eastern Shore of 
Virginia are my home refuges.
    And as a former natural resources Secretary of the 
Commonwealth, I can definitely speak to the importance of 
partnerships with the states in the Fish and Wildlife Service, 
partnerships with private landowners and the states in the Fish 
and Wildlife Service, et cetera. And the concepts of 
stewardship, contracting authority, and Good Neighbor Authority 
are certainly things that the Department supports.
    And we have worked with Chairman Westerman on the language. 
We have some technical assistance we would like to provide to 
maybe tighten things up a little bit, but certainly appreciate 
the spirit of that language. And definitely it is authority 
that we think we could use positively to benefit National 
Wildlife Refuges.
    Mrs. Kiggans. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Representative 
Dingell for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I have tremendous respect for the Chairman of this 
Committee, and appreciate his focus on habitat conservation. 
However, I must disagree today that the America's Wildlife 
Habitat Conservation Act is the best approach, and I am 
concerned that this bill does not address the biodiversity 
crisis with the urgency, the resources, or funding it requires.
    Many of you know, I lead the Recovery in America's Wildlife 
Act, or RAWA, which is legislation that was based on the 
recommendations from the Blue Ribbon Panel on Sustaining 
America's Diverse Fish and Wildlife Resources. This panel was 
convened in 2015, and was made up of a group of national 
business and conservation leaders, not a radical group, a group 
of business and conservation leaders across the political 
spectrum to recommend a new mechanism to sustainably fund fish 
and wildlife conservation.
    The enactment of RAWA remains one of my top priorities in 
Congress, which is why I want to use my time to better explain 
why I believe RAWA is the best path forward, and why, with 
great respect but strong disagreement, the Chairman's bill does 
not meet the mark. I am going to address my questions to Mr. 
Olson, who was on the blue ribbon panel.
    In March 2016, the blue ribbon panel recommended creating a 
dedicated funding stream to support the implementation of State 
Wildlife Action Plans in every state, territory, and the 
District of Columbia. Mr. Olson, is it true that the Chairman's 
bill does not include a permanent and dedicated funding stream, 
but rather authorizes up to $320 million annually, and let me 
emphasize ``up to,'' since this bill's funding is 
discretionary, and that it sunsets after 5 years?
    Mr. Olson. Yes, that is true.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. In contrast, RAWA would allocate 
nearly $1.4 billion annually, and permanent mandatory funding 
for state and tribal fish and wildlife management agencies, per 
the blue ribbon panel's recommendations.
    Mr. Olson, why is permanent, dedicated funding so important 
when it comes to wildlife and habitat management?
    Mr. Olson. Well, it takes a long time to conserve species 
and to arrest the decline of declining species. The Audubon 
Society, along with the Fish and Wildlife Service, opened the 
Condor Recovery Office in 1980 with 22 birds. It is North 
America's largest flying bird. There were 22 birds left in the 
wild. We are now up to 300. And this is nearly, what, 44 years 
later. It is still in danger. They are breeding in the wild 
successfully. They have been restored into Utah, Arizona, and 
northern Mexico, and they are breeding successfully throughout 
Southern California and the Coast Range. It just takes a long 
time.
    The peregrine falcon, the bald eagle, extraordinary success 
stories from the Endangered Species Act. But it was a concerted 
effort. State and Federal agencies, the Peregrine Fund, Audubon 
Societies. We completely eliminated as a breeding species 
peregrine falcons in the eastern United States. There were two 
pair left in the Rocky Mountains sitting on addled eggs because 
of DDT, eggshell thinning, and two pair in California.
    It is an extraordinary thing. We now have 250 pairs of 
peregrine falcons in California, but it has taken 20 to 25 
years. And it is dedicated funding, so that the state agencies 
can hire people and realize that you are not on a temporary 
assignment, and next year your appropriation is gone, and we 
are out of doing the business. It just takes dedicated funding 
and significant funding.
    We can avert the biological crisis. One in four birds in 
North America is no longer here. We have lost 3 billion birds 
in the last 50 years. It is on our watch.
    Mrs. Dingell. I agree with you. I am going to ask you just 
to answer this question shortly. And it is why RAWA matters.
    Is it also true that the Chairman's bill rescinds funding 
for programs managed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration and the Bureau of Reclamation under the 
Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and 
Jobs Act, which includes funding for tribes to cover the cost 
of the discretionary funding that may or may not be 
appropriated for this bill?
    Mr. Olson. It is true.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. It is especially troubling to 
learn how these clawbacks impact tribes, since it is my 
understanding how many feel that they have been left out of 
this process.
    I just, in my remaining time, want to emphasize the strong 
support RAWA has earned over the years. I really want to work 
with the Chairman, but I cannot support the America's Wildlife 
Habitat Conservation Act because, simply put, it doesn't meet 
the recommendations laid out by the blue ribbon panel.
    And I would like to ask for unanimous consent to insert in 
the record a number of documents. The first would be the 
bipartisan co-sponsor list for last Congress' version of RAWA; 
this year's bipartisan Senate co-sponsor list; and the 
bipartisan vote for RAWA on the House Floor during the 117th 
Congress. The recommendations of the blue ribbon panel 
outlining the need for $1.3 billion and permanent mandatory 
funding, along with the list of panelists on the blue ribbon 
panel, spanning the ideological spectrum representing 
conservation, sportsmen, scientists, states, businesses, and 
more. The House-passed H.R. 2773, Recovering America's Wildlife 
Act, which would provide almost $1.4 billion of permanent 
mandatory funding for states and tribes to carry out wildlife 
conservation. Support letters for RAWA from 61 Tribal Nations 
and thousands of business and conservation interests. And 
lastly, a Committee Report from the 116th Congress showing the 
markup vote count on RAWA. The Chairman voted for RAWA at that 
time.
    Mr. Bentz. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    

   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                               

The full document is available for viewing at:

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II13/20240306/116892/HHRG-
118-II13-20240306-SD006.pdf

                                ------                                

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

                               
The full bill is available for viewing on Congress.gov at:

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/
2773

                                ------                                

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

                               .
All of the letters of support for RAWA are available for 
viewing at:

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II13/20240306/116892/HHRG-
118-II13-20240306-SD008.pdf
The letters of support are from the following tribes:

        Native American Fish & 
        Wildlife Society              Point No Point Treaty Council

        Oneida Nation                 Pueblo of Santa Ana

        Menominee Indian Tribe of 
        Wisconsin                     Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska

        Swinomish Indian Tribal 
        Community                     Quileute Tribal Council

        Eastern Band of Cherokee 
        Indians                       1854 Treaty Authority

        Chippewa Ottawa Resource 
        Authority                     Keweenaw Bay Indian Community

        Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe    Northwest Indian Fisheries 
                                      Commission

        Confederated Salish and 
        Kootenai Tribes               Walker River Paiute Tribe

        Grand Traverse Band of 
        Ottawa and Chippewa Indians   Makah Tribe

        The Hope Tribe                Stillaquamish Tribe of Indians

        Lower Brule Sioux Tribe       Northern Cheyenne Tribe

        Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe     Southwest Tribal Fisheries 
                                      Commission

        Quinault Indian Nation        Confederated Tribes and Bands of 
                                      the Yakama Nation

        Lummi Indian Business 
        Council                       Yurok Tribe

        Osage Nation

                                ------                                

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

                               .

The Committee Report on H.R. 3742 is available for viewing at:

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II13/20240306/116892/HHRG-
118-II13-20240306-SD010.pdf

                                ------                                

    Mrs. Dingell. And with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Representative 
Hageman for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am grateful for 
all of the work that has gone into this bill, and more 
particularly for the discussions that I have had with Chairman 
Westerman in developing this legislation.
    I also want to thank each of the witnesses for their 
willingness to testify in front of this Subcommittee. We deeply 
value your input, knowledge, and your expertise.
    I have one quick question for Mr. Strickler, and that is, 
Mr. Strickler, are you aware of which agency created one of the 
worst environmental disasters in U.S. history?
    Mr. Strickler. Representative Hageman, I am not entirely 
sure, but happy for you to enlighten me.
    Ms. Hageman. Well, it was the EPA, and the EPA blew out the 
Gold King Mine in 2015, and released 800,000 pounds of heavy 
metals and other things into the Animas River, turning the 
Animas River yellow. And in doing so, they destroyed hundreds 
of miles of rivers, fisheries, wildlife, and other things down 
in southwestern Colorado and in the remainder of the Animas 
River. No one has ever been held responsible for that.
    So, I think that it is very important that we understand 
who actually has the skin in the game for conserving our 
natural resources and our wildlife.
    Wildlife habitat, water, and resource conservation is 
extremely important to the state of Wyoming. Almost a year ago, 
we had the privilege of hearing from the Director of Wyoming 
Game and Fish in this Subcommittee as we spoke on my bill, the 
Grizzly Bear State Management Act. Mr. Brian Nesvik, the 
Director of the state agency, spoke on the timeline of the 
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly bear listing and 
attempted delistings. He made it very clear in his testimony 
that it is our state and local managers who are putting in the 
hard work on the ground and who best understand our local 
ecosystems.
    In fact, Wyoming has spent over $59 million on grizzly 
recovery, whereas the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has spent 
only in the thousands. States have the responsibility, 
expertise, and incentives to conserve the species within their 
borders. And, in fact, many states take an outsized role in 
managing listed species.
    One of the things that we discussed as we were going 
through the bill for the grizzly bear delisting is how the 
Endangered Species Act actually works, and it is the states 
that do so much of the heavy lifting in terms of protecting our 
wildlife. Like in my home state of Wyoming, the Greater 
Yellowstone grizzly bear, the gray wolf, et cetera have been 
highly successful, but that is because of state management.
    Mr. Booth, do you believe that the greater regulatory 
opportunities that are afforded to states under this bill will 
empower you to command more resources at the state level to 
conserve species in your state?
    Mr. Booth. Yes, ma'am, we do, relative to some of the 
modest ESA reforms that are in this bill.
    Really, what it does is it perfectly captures the already 
healthy, productive, and ongoing relationship that we are very 
proud of in Arkansas that we have with the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service. We work every single day with our partners at 
our 10 refuges, and these people have dirt on their hands and 
smoke in their hair, and we are really, really proud of it.
    Ms. Hageman. So, Mr. Booth, when the Fish and Wildlife 
Service has given states, landowners, and conservation groups 
clear recovery targets, do you believe that that has motivated 
the recovery efforts?
    Mr. Booth. Yes, I do.
    Ms. Hageman. And when those recovery targets have been met, 
but yet it takes even perhaps years to get regulations in place 
or delisting to occur, how does that affect states' and 
landowners' incentives to invest in recovery efforts?
    Mr. Booth. It is often disheartening for landowners to see 
that regulatory changes or improvements move slower than 
putting habitat down on the ground. It ultimately erodes long-
term support for conservation.
    Ms. Hageman. Mr. Bronson, I would like to direct some of 
these questions to you, as well. When you have clear recovery 
targets from the Fish and Wildlife Service, do you believe that 
that motivates recovery efforts?
    Mr. Bronson. Yes.
    Ms. Hageman. And when a species is recovered, don't you 
believe that it also incentivizes people to work with more 
species when the Fish and Wildlife Service actually moves 
forward successfully with delisting a recovered species?
    Mr. Bronson. Absolutely. When you have success, it breeds 
more and additional success. But when you are locked in and 
can't move forward, on gray wolves, for instance, in the Great 
Lakes region, or grizzly bears in your state, it just 
frustrates all the managers involved in the process, all the 
way down the line for other species down the road.
    Ms. Hageman. It disincentivizes participation with the 
program entirely, doesn't it?
    Mr. Bronson. Correct.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you.
    Again, I want to thank each of you for being here today and 
providing the testimony that you have, working with us to put 
forth a bill that is actually going to succeed at recovering 
species, rather than being used as a zoning mechanism to 
control land and water use. Thank you.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes Congresswoman Hoyle from 
Oregon for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Hoyle. Thank you, my fellow Oregonian and Chair. I 
would like to yield my time to Representative Huffman.
    Mr. Huffman. I thank the gentlelady from Oregon.
    Mr. Strickler, I want to come back to you because you were 
just asked about the 2015 toxic spill into the Animas River. I 
am old enough to remember that incident. And it seems to me 
that this was not EPA's mine. As I recall, there was a deadbeat 
mine owner, a problem we have faced throughout the country with 
abandoned mines and deadbeat mine owners.
    What are we missing in the exchange that you just had with 
the Congresswoman from Wyoming? Not that any of it is relevant 
to this bill.
    Mr. Strickler. Representative Huffman, with great 
trepidation, and not wanting to get in between you and Ms. 
Hageman here, and wanting to keep the focus on the topic of the 
hearing, I do believe that your recollection of that is 
accurate.
    Mr. Huffman. Right. It was a deadbeat mine owner.
    OK. Mr. Olson, under RAWA, state agencies would receive 
nearly 25 to 30 times the current funding levels. Is that your 
understanding?
    Mr. Olson. Yes.
    Mr. Huffman. For wildlife conservation, which would be a 
great benefit to their work. What kind of impact would infusion 
of resources like that have on America's wildlife?
    Mr. Olson. Well, I think I have this correct. I think even 
the smallest states, Rhode Island would get a minimum of $15 
million a year focused on implementing their State Wildlife 
Action Plans and focused on those declining species. And with 
the dedicated funding, that means you could really implement a 
long-term plan to recover these species and keep them off the 
endangered species list.
    Keeping it is like preventative health care for wildlife 
versus putting them in the emergency room. And I think part of 
the reason we had two oil company presidents, Shell Oil North 
America and Hess Oil's president, on the committee was the fact 
that they wanted long-term assurances of not having to get to 
the emergency room and start paying all the lawyers and all the 
delays, the train wrecks that happen when you do get in that 
situation. And the National Association of Realtors and the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce endorsed that concept. Let's keep 
species out of the emergency room.
    I think this bill focuses a lot on the Endangered Species 
Act, and I think that is fine. But what we were trying to do 
was prevent the endangered species becoming endangered.
    Mr. Huffman. Right. Thank you for elaborating a little bit 
on the actual composition of the panel, the reason it was 
formed. Could you say a little bit more about the panel's 
actual recommendation?
    And then, listen, I want you to go woodpecker watching with 
Mr. Westerman, as well, but I need you to just give a cold-
blooded comparison between this current bill, which is a hollow 
authorization of $320 million offset by cuts to other programs 
that help wildlife, versus the almost $1.4 billion in 
guaranteed annual funding that RAWA recommended.
    Mr. Olson. Yes. Well, I think everybody here wants to keep 
species from being listed. And we felt like taking a long-term 
dedicated funding approach reaching 12,000 species would be the 
best way to go about averting the crisis and beginning to 
recover from the crisis.
    With Mr. Westerman's bill, I appreciate the fact that it is 
collaborative, that it sends funds to the state, but it is not 
dedicated funding, and it is not clear that it would even be 
reauthorized or that $300 million would be appropriated on an 
annual basis.
    Mr. Huffman. And with the sunset, it actually takes you 
backward, right?
    Mr. Olson. Yes, after 5 years.
    Mr. Huffman. Look, the main point, I believe, correct me if 
I am wrong, but the main point of the blue ribbon panel was 
this guaranteed annual funding, and the level of guaranteed 
annual funding needed to do the job.
    Mr. Olson. Yes, that is exactly right.
    Mr. Huffman. And Mr. Westerman's bill, for whatever other 
provisions it might have in it, doesn't include that. In fact, 
it puts us on a weaker financial footing going forward. Is that 
fair to say?
    Mr. Olson. That is fair.
    Mr. Huffman. Thanks, I yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes Congressman Duarte for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Duarte. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it.
    In the state of California, healthy forests are very 
important, our way of life. This Cottonwood Decision has caused 
a state of paralysis in managing our Federal forests by 
requiring forest plans to go through new ESA consultations 
every time a new species is listed. For that reason, I have 
been a consistent supporter of legislative efforts to provide a 
fix to the detrimental Cottonwood Decision.
    Mr. Bronson, I have heard critics of reversing the 
Cottonwood Decision state that ESA consultation is a quick 
process that can be completed in a few days. Has that been your 
experience?
    Mr. Bronson. Mr. Chairman, Representative Duarte, no, that 
hasn't been our experience.
    When we look at the very first consultation that was 
required from the original court case, that took 400 person 
days for the Forest Service to do the review. It took over 12 
months and it cost $250,000. And since that time, most 
reconsultations have been on par with that.
    Mr. Duarte. Thank you. Again, Mr. Bronson, as a state 
outside the Ninth Circuit, and therefore not currently 
prioritizing reversing the Cottonwood Decision, what is at play 
there? What do you know about that?
    Mr. Bronson. The original ruling affected the Ninth 
Circuit, and it actually conflicted with a ruling that had been 
made in the Tenth Circuit. So, what we have is a situation 
where there is uncertainty for the rest of the country. Which 
precedent is going to take effect? Is reconsultation required, 
as the Ninth says, or is it not required, as the Tenth says? 
So, that is a big part of the concern about uncertainty.
    An injunction was put in place in an Arizona court, which 
is in the Ninth Circuit, but that affected forests that were in 
New Mexico, including the forests that were affected by the Hay 
Creek Fire, the massive, world-record-setting wildfire. There 
was an area of treatment that didn't get treated for over a 
year because of a Cottonwood injunction, even though New Mexico 
was outside of the Ninth Circuit. So, this is having impacts 
beyond that.
    But I think the biggest concern that states outside of the 
Ninth Circuit should have is that this is costing the Forest 
Service a lot of time and money that is taking their people 
away from active forest management across the country. It is 
reducing budgets for needless litigation.
    Mr. Duarte. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Tenny, you work with a lot of forest owners. Forest 
management, whether public or private lands, has conjunctive 
uses that we all value: habitat, watershed logging, grazing, 
recreation. How does preservation wilderness fit into that 
conjunctive management scheme, and does it have a place and can 
it be balanced?
    Mr. Tenny. Well, yes and yes. What we find with private 
forest owners is their primary interest is to find that 
balance.
    Our member companies in the West have shared thousands of 
miles of boundary with the National Forest System lands, so 
what we focus on in that relationship is to maintain the health 
of the land on those boundaries because we have to. Now, those 
boundaries are usually distant from preserved areas, and those 
preserved areas provide a lot of benefit to a lot of people for 
a variety of reasons. We focus our attention on those areas 
that need to be managed to preserve both the benefits on the 
Federal land, which everybody needs, and the benefits on the 
private land, which everybody needs.
    Mr. Duarte. What is your experience with the history of 
catastrophic wildfire when it comes across the private lands 
that are managed as private lands for conjunctive benefits, and 
of public lands that are held as preservation wilderness, and 
basically unmanaged, overgrown, oftentimes very high fuel 
density?
    Mr. Tenny. Well, I would be lying if I said I didn't have a 
little PTSD on some of that, because we have seen some very 
difficult fire situations in recent years, and we know that. We 
have seen them in California, we have seen them in Oregon. 
There is no doubt that fire does not know boundaries.
    So, what we are doing with the Forest Service, in fact, we 
just signed an MOU with the Forest Service last week that will 
enable our private forest owners to extend fuel breaks onto 
Federal land, and to cooperate in these adjacent areas so that 
we can address that very issue.
    It is a start.
    Mr. Duarte. One last question. Comparative habitat value 
between the private lands and the preservation wilderness lands 
and public ownership.
    Mr. Tenny. It varies from place to place, but I can tell 
you that where we are managing, I will give you an example of 
owls. Owls is a good example that you will understand. Owls 
need places to sleep, they need places to forage. And when you 
have a mosaic of forest types, you can provide that.
    Because we are managing our lands on a continuous rotation 
of young, older, and then mature forests, we are providing that 
mosaic of habitat that owls need, and this carries over to a 
whole variety of other species, whether it is tree voles or 
Pacific fishers, a whole variety of other species that we have 
been able to manage without the need for listing because of the 
way we manage.
    Mr. Duarte. So, actively-managed forest lands generally 
have higher habitat value than preservation wilderness forest 
lands.
    Mr. Tenny. We know from our experience that they provide 
the habitat that the species need. And what happens on the 
Federal land, it is variable.
    Mr. Duarte. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. The Chair recognizes himself for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Booth, the leverage, the synergy, the compound return 
of private landowners working with agencies, that, to me, seems 
to be one of the most important parts of this bill. And the 
reason it is so important is because we don't have enough 
money, as we have heard over and over again, to do all the work 
that needs to be done. So, leveraging that private landowner 
involvement is key because we don't have all the money in the 
world, as has been suggested by folks on the other side of the 
aisle, perhaps the gentleman sitting to my left.
    So, my question to you is, do you see this bill as a means 
of prompting local landowners with their millions of acres of 
land working with agencies? Do you see this bill as a prompt to 
have that actually happen?
    Mr. Booth. Without question. We see landowners in Arkansas 
with a very deep desire to do the right thing for the natural 
resource, but they are normally lacking in either two things: 
knowledge or resources. This important legislation will help us 
establish a conduit with these private landowners to help give 
them both.
    Mr. Bentz. It seems to me that, without the involvement of 
the private landowner, we are not going to be successful in 
recovering these species. We simply are not.
    I viewed this bill based upon conversations with people 
like you and also back in my home state of Oregon, where I 
assisted as a lawyer in many ranches entering into CCAAs. And 
there was great fear in that space that this bill actually 
would address. And to me, getting people who do have thousands 
of acres of sagebrush land enthusiastic about entering into 
arrangements with the government that actually help and don't 
threaten is so important, and this bill does exactly that.
    Mr. Strickler, I read with interest your testimony, 
particularly page 2, where you talk about new approaches in the 
Klamath. And I was just wondering if you were referring to the 
holes blown in those dams that are now allowing all kinds of 
sediment to rush down the river and kill thousands, tens of 
thousands, if not millions, of fish. And I wonder if that was 
one of the new approaches.
    And I am being mean about this, Mr. Strickler, I know you 
didn't have much to do with what is going on there. But I must 
say, when I went through your assertion that the money being 
spent in the BIL and the IRA, the assertion is almost as 
though, if this bill were to pass, all of those trillions would 
be sucked up by this bill. And that is not the case at all, is 
it?
    This bill suggests $300 billion a year. Those two bills are 
in the trillions, am I right?
    And why would you make such a suggestion, that somehow this 
bill would rob those two pieces of legislation of their money?
    Mr. Strickler. Chairman Bentz, thank you for the question. 
It is good to see you again, and happy to talk to you about 
Klamath dam removal or otherwise.
    The legislation states clearly that there would be funds 
from Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act 
rescinded, I think, ostensibly as an offset for the funding 
authorized, spending authorized in this legislation. It is not 
the entire amount, obviously, of those large pieces of 
legislation, but it would be significant funding for the 
programs we mentioned earlier.
    Mr. Bentz. All right. Well, I just want to say that that 
wasn't what I heard in your initial testimony. And I was taken 
aback by your statement that taking money from the Inflation 
Reduction Act is counter-productive, particularly where this 
bill promotes this leverage, this compounding, this synergy we 
just heard about from Mr. Booth.
    So, if we are getting this kind of compound return on that 
which this bill suggests, as opposed to whatever it is that is 
currently happening, wouldn't you agree that if we can get more 
money, more bang for the buck, if you will, under this bill 
than under these other two Acts you referenced, we should be 
trying to figure out how to better use those funds. Wouldn't 
you agree?
    Mr. Strickler. Mr. Chairman, I think the ``if'' there is 
important. I don't believe that we would get more bang for our 
buck by rescinding that funding and putting it towards 
different purposes.
    I think to the point that others have made today, let's do 
both. I think the purposes of the funding that has been 
appropriate under BIL and IRA is really important.
    Mr. Bentz. I am going to be out of my own time here in a 
second.
    I appreciate your answer, but it is no surprise to me that 
my Ranking Member brought this fake money in, because if we 
don't get control of our spending this is what our dollars are 
going to be worth. So, the question becomes, how do we 
appropriately use that which has already been allocated better?
    And I am looking forward to hearing what Chair Westerman 
has to say. And since I am now going to recognize him for 5 
minutes, we will get to hear that now.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Bentz, and thank you to 
the witnesses today.
    There has been a lot of talk about the blue ribbon 
commission and the recommendations. And I will admit 
Recommendation No. 1 says Congress dedicate up to $1.3 billion 
annually. And Mr. Olson, I know you were on the blue ribbon 
commission.
    Mr. Strickler, you talked about the blue ribbon commission.
    Mr. Olson, if this language had the $1.3 billion permanent 
mandatory spending in it, what would be your position on it? 
Would you support it if it had the $1.3 billion of permanent 
mandatory annual funding?
    Mr. Olson. Well, that is a strong component of what we 
would like to see in the bill.
    We would also like to probably, I think, take a look at the 
endangered species provisions. We love the idea of having 
private landowners in the states building a working 
relationship and a partnership.
    I think our concern is that Federal authority of the 
Endangered Species Act, there are issues with grizzly bears and 
wolves.
    Mr. Westerman. I need to move on here.
    Mr. Olson. OK.
    Mr. Westerman. I only read the first phrase in 
Recommendation No. 1. Can you finish Recommendation No. 1?
    And I read, ``Congress dedicate up to $1.3 billion 
annually.'' Do you know how that recommendation ends?
    Mr. Olson. To fund state agencies, wildlife agencies, and 
tribal governments to be able to develop conservation plans----
    Mr. Westerman. You are missing it a little bit. Let me just 
read it.
    Recommendation No. 1, ``Congress dedicate up to $1.3 
billion annually in existing revenue from the development of 
energy and mineral resources on Federal lands and waters to the 
Wildlife Conservation Restoration Program.'' Do you remember 
that?
    Mr. Olson. That is correct.
    Mr. Westerman. Did the bill from last Congress, the RAWA 
bill, have offsets from development of energy and mineral 
resources from Federal and----
    Mr. Olson. No, it did not.
    Mr. Westerman. No, it was coming straight out of the 
Treasury with no offset.
    And Mr. Strickler, you seem to think we need the $1.3 
billion annually, but you don't think it is more important than 
the NOAA and the Bureau of Reclamation provisions that, quite 
frankly, aren't being used out of IIJA and the IRA. Where would 
you find the money?
    Mr. Strickler. Chairman Westerman, thank you for the 
question. There is a reason there was nothing about where we 
should find the money in my testimony, because that is not for 
me to say.
    Mr. Westerman. So, we are borrowing it from our kids and 
our grandkids. And with no offsets to it, that is pretty 
irresponsible. And it will make the money turn into play money, 
the value of the U.S. currency that is already being devalued 
with high inflation.
    Mr. Bronson, you represent elk. If there is good elk 
habitat, does Mr. Olson get good songbird habitat? Do they 
usually go hand in hand?
    Mr. Bronson. Mr. Chairman, Representative Westerman, yes, 
normally.
    We work on elk primarily, but we also work on other 
wildlife, and we care about a lot of species. So, good quality 
sage for elk is good quality sage for sage-grouse.
    Mr. Westerman. So, it is really not about a species, it is 
about habitat. And this bill is focused on restoring habitat, 
not somehow magically waving a wand and recovering a species. 
It all comes back to habitat.
    Mr. Booth, let's get a little bit specific about what is in 
the bill. We know Arkansas has 10 percent public lands, and 
part of that is state lands. The private lands there, if 
landowners wanted to manage for wildlife habitat and your 
agency was available to send biologists and foresters out to 
meet with them and tell them that if you implement this plan, 
which most of the time it is going to require thinning their 
forest to get the basal area right, and probably some kind of 
controlled burns, do you think people would do that?
    Mr. Booth. Without question, Congressman. We have people 
jumping over themselves to do it right now.
    Mr. Westerman. And when you thin land in Arkansas, you sell 
the timber off. They could use that to pay for the work that is 
done on it, so there is no cost to the program, and the 
landowner might even get money back, which is a benefit for 
everyone.
    Now, when you go to the Federal lands, which are in the 
same condition, and this has been proven with the red-cockaded 
woodpecker habitat, when you go in and manage those lands and 
sell the timber from the thinnings, you get to put that back in 
the pot. I think under RAWA you would have about $13 million a 
year, but you probably have the potential to generate $30 or 
$40 million a year to do wildlife management where you don't 
have something like a timber resource to pay it back.
    So, as far as funding goes, this is actually extremely more 
innovative than just saying, oh, we are going to pull $1.3 
billion out of the air from our kids and our grandkids and 
shove it down to the states with no responsibility.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, and I thank the witnesses for their 
testimony and the Members for their questions.
    The members of the Committee may have some 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. Eastern Time on Monday, March 11. The hearing record will 
be held open for 10 business days for these responses.
    Without objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

                        Statement for the Record
                   National Marine Fisheries Service
            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                      U.S. Department of Commerce
                              on H.R. 7408

    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is 
responsible for the stewardship of the nation's living marine resources 
and their habitat. Backed by sound science and an ecosystem-based 
approach to management, NOAA Fisheries provides vital services for the 
nation, including sustainable management of our fisheries, ensuring 
safe sources of seafood, and the recovery and conservation of protected 
species and healthy ecosystems. 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.
The Endangered Species Act

    Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), NOAA Fisheries works to 
recover marine and anadromous species while preserving robust economic 
and recreational opportunities. There are more than 160 endangered and 
threatened marine and anadromous species under NOAA's jurisdiction. Our 
work includes listing species under the ESA, monitoring species status, 
designating critical habitat, implementing actions to recover 
endangered and threatened species, consulting with other Federal 
agencies to insure their activities are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat, developing ESA policies, guidance, and regulations, 
and working with partners to conserve and recover listed species. NOAA 
Fisheries shares the responsibility of implementing the ESA with the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereafter referred to as the Services).
    Recognizing the value of our natural heritage, Congress enacted the 
ESA nearly unanimously in 1973, in acknowledgement of the broad public 
support for the prevention of species extinction and the conservation 
of ecosystems and biodiversity. The ESA is the nation's foremost 
conservation law for protecting wildlife and plants in danger of 
extinction. It plays a critical, science-based role in preventing the 
extinction of imperiled species, promoting their recovery, and 
conserving their habitats. It has been extraordinarily effective at 
preventing species from going extinct and has inspired voluntary action 
to conserve at-risk species and their habitat before they reach the 
point where they would qualify to be listed as threatened or 
endangered.
    Since it was signed into law, more than 99 percent of the species 
listed have been saved from extinction.
    We offer the following comments on HR 7408.
HR 7408--America's Wildlife Habitat Conservation Act

    HR 7408 would amend the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act 
to authorize supplemental funds for management of fish and wildlife 
species to States and Tribes. It would authorize the Department of the 
Interior to allocate these funds to accounts established under the 
Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and to issue grants. Because 
NOAA Fisheries does not provide or receive funds under the Pittman-
Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act, this part of the legislation does 
not pertain to NOAA Fisheries.
    HR 7408 would also amend several provisions of the ESA including 
provisions pertaining to listing species, designating critical habitat, 
and promulgating protective regulations under section 4(d) for 
threatened species. NOAA has several concerns with these provisions and 
opposes these sections of HR 7408.
Listing Determinations [Section 401]

    HR 7408 would amend the ESA to require the Services, when 
determining whether to list a species, to take into account the net 
conservation benefit of any ``Candidate Conservation Agreement with 
Assurances'' or ``Programmatic Candidate Conservation Agreement with 
Assurances'' for that species. Candidate Conservation Agreements with 
Assurances are voluntary agreements that are used to provide incentives 
for non-Federal landowners to conserve candidate and other unlisted 
species. The Services currently enter into these agreements when we 
determine that the conservation measures that will be implemented 
address key current and anticipated future threats that are under the 
property owner's control and will result in a net conservation benefit 
to, and improve the status of, the covered species.
    This bill's definition of ``net conservation benefit'' differs from 
that in the 2016 joint NOAA Fisheries and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service candidate conservation agreement with assurances policy (81 FR 
95164). The policy provides a clear definition of the term ``net 
conservation benefit'' that specifically refers to cumulative benefits 
of the conservation measures and describes how the benefits are 
measured. Consistent with the policy's definition, the conservation 
measures and property-management activities covered by the agreement 
must be designed to reduce or eliminate those key threats on the 
property that are under the property owner's control in order to 
increase the species' populations or improve its habitat. HR 7408 
defines ``net conservation benefit'' as the net effect of the agreement 
by comparing the situation of the candidate species with and without an 
agreement, rather than the cumulative benefits to the species 
referenced in the policy. As such, the bill would allow for exemption 
from future listing based on a lower standard than currently 
applicable, undermining the ability of the ESA to prevent extinction. 
In addition, it is not clear how the requirement to take into account 
the net conservation benefit of any ``Candidate Conservation Agreement 
with Assurances'' or ``Programmatic Candidate Conservation Agreement 
with Assurances'' would apply to NOAA Fisheries, as various subsections 
of the bill establish responsibilities for the ``Secretary''--a term 
that includes both Services--and the Director of the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, which would exclude NOAA Fisheries from the bill's 
application.
Critical Habitat [Sections 402]

    Existing section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA precludes the Secretary 
from designating as critical habitat lands or geographical areas owned 
or controlled by the Department of Defense that are subject to an 
integrated natural resources management plan prepared under the Sikes 
Act, if the Secretary determines that the plan provides a benefit to 
the species. Section 402 of HR 7408 would prohibit the Services from 
designating as critical habitat lands that are privately owned or 
controlled, and that are subject to a land management plan that the 
Secretary determines is similar to an integrated natural resource 
management plan under Section 101 of the Sikes Act. Privately 
controlled land is not defined.
    While some of this provision in HR 7408 is similar to Section 
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the ESA, HR 7408 includes additional requirements and 
findings that would be very difficult to produce within the time frames 
the ESA requires for critical habitat to be designated. For example, 
section 402 provides that one way for a land management plan to be 
prepared is in cooperation with the Services and each applicable State 
fish and wildlife agency. The resource-intensive task of preparing and 
assessing potentially multiple plans in multiple states for wide-
ranging species would strain the Services' limited resources, and cause 
delay. Even if land management plans are prepared independently of a 
multi-agency cooperative process, assessing plans that are otherwise 
developed and submitted to the Services would also be time-consuming 
and resource-intensive. In assessing those plans, the Services would be 
required by this bill to determine, among other things, whether the 
plan would result in an increase in the population of the species or 
would maintain the same population as the population that would likely 
occur if such land or other geographical area were designated as 
critical habitat. Such an analysis would be difficult to conduct.
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Plans [Section 501]

    HR 7408 would revise the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 
and Planning Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act to 
expressly provide that reinitiation of consultation under Section 
7(a)(2) of the ESA and its related implementing regulation, 50 CFR 
402.16, would not be required on approved, amended, or revised U.S. 
Forest Service (USFS) land management plans or Bureau of Land 
Management land use plans when new species are listed, new critical 
habitat is designated, or new information regarding listed species or 
critical habitat becomes available.
    The USDA, Department of the Interior (DOI), and NOAA are committed 
to continuing to work together towards a legislative solution that 
allows for timely decision making, while maintaining the important 
wildlife protections afforded by the Endangered Species Act. As 
drafted, the Administration has concerns with this section of HR 7408 
and looks forward to working with the Committee and the bill sponsor to 
address concerns with the bill. We want to ensure clarity on how 
consultation for specific actions or projects facilitates the agencies 
fulfilling their responsibilities to protect listed species and 
designated critical habitats while providing the many benefits we gain 
by managing our forests.
Protective Regulations for Threatened Species [Section 601]

    Section 9 of the ESA lists seven specific prohibited actions with 
respect to endangered species, which include prohibitions on import, 
export, interstate and foreign commerce, and take of endangered species 
of fish and wildlife. The Section 9 prohibitions for endangered species 
do not automatically apply to threatened species.
    The ESA recognizes the different status of threatened and 
endangered species and provides greater flexibility in the conservation 
and management of threatened species under Section 4(d). NOAA Fisheries 
has utilized section 4(d) to provide a flexible, targeted approach to 
the management and conservation of threatened species.
    HR 7408 would amend Section 4(d) of the ESA to require that, when a 
4(d) rule for a threatened species prohibits an act in Section 9(a) of 
the ESA, the Services develop incremental recovery goals for that 
species and provide for the stringency of the regulation to decrease as 
those recovery goals are met. In addition, under this bill, States 
could develop a recovery strategy for threatened or candidate species 
that the Service would adopt as the 4(d) rule within that State if 
certain criteria are met. These provisions may be difficult to 
implement because the recovery goals for a threatened species may not 
be known or may have not been identified at the time of listing the 
species, and undertaking the activities required by the bill could 
result in delays in putting protective regulations in place for 
threatened species. The development of recovery goals and strategies is 
best done through the development of a recovery plan under Section 4(f) 
of the ESA. Recovery plans include comprehensive recovery criteria, 
goals and strategies developed through a collaborative, inclusive 
process. The additional requirements and the process of reviewing and 
approving State recovery strategies required by the bill would be a 
resource-intensive effort that could divert NOAA Fisheries' resources 
from implementing conservation actions for the species and delay 
activities that could prevent a species from declining to the point 
where the statute requires listing it as endangered. Moreover, the 
petition process also appears to limit the public's ability to provide 
substantive input in the informal rulemaking process to adopt a 4(d) 
rule if a state's petition is approved.
IRA Rescissions Impacts to Coastal Communities and NOAA Facilities 
        [Section 701]

    NOAA opposes this provision. At this critical time in our planet's 
history, HR 7408's rescission of funds allocated in Public Law 117-169 
would divest resources from coastal, fishing, and Tribal communities 
across the nation and jeopardize critical NOAA facilities and 
infrastructure, affecting U.S. communities' resilience to extreme 
weather and climate change. Furthermore, NOAA is already actively 
soliciting contract and grant applications in order to comply with the 
Public Law 117-169, or the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).
    Coastal communities contribute approximately $400 billion annually 
to the U.S. economy and house facilities and infrastructure critical to 
the U.S. economy and national security, such as ports and military 
installations. Through the historic funding made available through the 
IRA, NOAA is supporting community resilience through funding and 
technical assistance for capacity building, transformational adaptation 
and resilience planning, conserving and protecting fisheries and other 
critical resources, supporting Tribal nation priorities, creating high 
quality climate-ready jobs, and improving delivery of climate services 
to communities and businesses.
    To that end, NOAA is investing $575 million through the Climate 
Resilience Regional Challenge (CRRC) to support holistic approaches to 
building community resilience at the regional scale. These investments 
are critically needed, as communities across the nation are 
experiencing increasing impacts from extreme weather and climate 
change, such as flooding, wildfires, drought, extreme heat, and more. 
NOAA received nearly 870 letters of intent and more than 33 letters of 
support from Members of Congress requesting more than $16 billion in 
funding through the CRRC program, which amounts to 28 times more in 
requests than we have in available funding. NOAA is working to meet the 
needs of communities and build resilience along our nation's coasts; 
however, the bill's rescission of funds puts the success of these 
projects (which we expect to announce in the coming months) in peril.
    Additionally, NOAA is investing $349 million to support Climate 
Ready Fisheries to strengthen the agency's science, management, and 
survey enterprise to build a dynamically managed fisheries system. As 
with all of NOAA's plans for IRA funds, this funding has been fully 
planned and work is underway to execute funds to invest in advanced 
data technologies and modern infrastructure, to support the critically 
endangered North Atlantic Right Whale, to implement improvements in 
recreational fishery surveys for red snapper, among other things. 
Reversing these plans would threaten NOAA's efforts to provide real-
time advice and long-range projections to inform and support fishery 
management decisions for affected sectors and communities. In addition, 
rescissions through the America's Wildlife Habitat Conservation Act 
would impact $390 million in investments that are directly responsive 
to priorities identified by Tribes in our March 2023 consultation 
sessions and written comments. These priorities include support for 
restoring Pacific salmon and fish passage to help Tribal communities 
enhance their resilience to impacts from extreme weather and climate 
change.
    NOAA is investing IRA funds to help organizations recruit, train 
and place workers in climate resilience fields and catalyze public-
private partnerships to develop and bring to market the next generation 
of innovative new products and services to solve challenges related to 
impacts from extreme weather and climate change. This work will 
contribute to economic development and growth while developing and 
growing new businesses and putting Americans to work in high-paying 
jobs across the country.
    Finally, NOAA's facilities portfolio is vast with over 620 
facilities, including over 400 owned properties, and an estimated 
replacement value which exceeds $3 billion. Each facility requires 
financial investments for maintenance, repairs, modernization, and even 
replacement to effectively sustain and evolve NOAA's science 
capabilities to support current and future missions. Sections 40001 and 
40002 of the IRA provide funding for necessary updates to NOAA 
facilities and infrastructure to continue to operate our science and 
research missions. The rescission of funds through the America's 
Wildlife Habitat Conservation Act would disrupt the success of NOAA's 
overarching science priorities and service to the public by canceling 
investments for the Northwest Fisheries Science Center, fishery survey 
vessels' mid-life repair, and marine sanctuary facilities across the 
country.
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. NOAA shares and supports many of the goals 
identified in the legislation, including conserving and restoring 
species' habitat, recovering listed species and preventing the need to 
list species under the ESA. However, NOAA opposes the proposed funding 
offsets and many of the provisions related to ESA implementation.

                                 ______
                                 

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Westerman

           Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

                          Tallahassee, Florida

                                                  March 4, 2024    

Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Westerman:

    The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) is 
pleased to support H.R. 7408, the America's Wildlife Habitat 
Conservation Act.

    H.R. 7408 would provide a much-needed investment in America's 
habitat and wildlife conservation. Throughout the nation, and here in 
Florida, America's wildlife and their habitats need help. The State of 
Florida has committed significant resources to the conservation of our 
fish, wildlife and habitats and leads the nation in our programs for 
land acquisition and to keep working lands working. Management of these 
lands is critical to maintaining their value for fish and wildlife. 
According to Florida's State Wildlife Action Plan (2019), 690 animals 
are listed as Species of Greatest Conservation Needs. We must continue 
to restore and provide ongoing management of habitats to prevent more 
species from being listed as Threatened or Endangered and aid in the 
recovery of species that are already listed.

    The America's Wildlife Habitat Conservation Act is a step to 
provide immediate funding assistance to these habitats and species. As 
you know, the America's Wildlife Habitat Conservation Act would provide 
$300 million each year for five years to the states for habitat and 
species conservation.

    Thank you for introducing H.R. 7408, and FWC looks forward to 
working with you to advance this legislation and improve our country's 
natural resources.

            Sincerely,

                                            Rodney Barreto,
                                                           Chairman

                                 ______
                                 

                 National Cattlemen's Beef Association

                                  and

                          Public Lands Council

                                                  March 6, 2024    

Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Hon. Cliff Bentz, Chair
Hon. Jared Huffman, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries
Natural Resources Committee
Washington, DC 20515

    Chairman Westerman, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Grijalva, and 
Ranking Member Huffman:

    Livestock producers conserve and enhance millions of acres of high-
quality wildlife habitat on both public and privately owned land across 
the United States. These farmers and ranchers treat against invasive 
plant species, cultivate and restore native grasslands, mitigate the 
risk of wildfire, work with state and federal authorities to support 
migration corridors, and participate in voluntary conservation 
agreements to support wildlife recovery, all while raising high-quality 
protein to feed our nation. The National Cattlemen's Beef Association 
(NCBA) is the oldest and largest trade association representing the 
American cattle industry, with roughly 26,000 individual members and 
more than 178,000 members through 44 state affiliate organizations. The 
Public Lands Council (PLC) is the only national group dedicated solely 
to representing the ranchers who hold roughly 22,000 federal grazing 
permits and steward more than 220 million acres of public lands across 
the West. United in our goal of providing healthy, green, open acres of 
habitat on productive working lands for a host of different wildlife 
species, we write today in support of H.R. 7408, the America's Wildlife 
Habitat Conservation Act, and urge members of the Committee to vote Yes 
on the bill.

    Despite the best original intentions of Congress to enact 
protections and leverage federal resources to recover imperiled 
species, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has become an endless source 
of bureaucratic delay, federal government overreach, and frivolous 
litigation by extreme activist groups. In response to the urgent need 
for commonsense ESA reforms, H.R. 7408 provides commonsense solutions:

    Vital, statutory certainty for landowners who make essential, 
voluntary investments in conserving wildlife habitat on private land. 
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) cannot achieve their goals 
without the participation of private landowners; by their own estimate, 
two-thirds of all species listed under the ESA have some habitat on 
private acres.\1\ Producer participation in voluntary agreements can be 
an incredibly powerful tool. For example, across the range of the 
lesser prairie-chicken, more than 1.8 million acres of habitat was 
enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program, more than 1.6 million 
acres of agricultural land was enrolled in the Working Lands for 
Wildlife initiative, more than 2 million acres were enrolled by 
ranchers in New Mexico under Candidate Conservation Agreements (CCAs) 
and Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances (CCAAs), and more 
than 1 million acres were enrolled by landowners in Texas and Oklahoma 
under their respective CCAAs.\2\ Despite these efforts, the lesser 
prairie-chicken was listed anyway, and an overreaching 4(d) rule issued 
for the threatened population soured many farmers and ranchers on any 
future intent to conserve habitat for the species. After years of this 
broad-brush, one-size-fits-all approach by USFWS, many producers and 
landowners are understandably skeptical of enrolling in these voluntary 
agreements in the first place if they ultimately won't count as 
``real'' habitat management in the eyes of the agency. H.R. 7408 would 
codify CCAs and CCAAs, and prevent landowners from falling under a 
critical habitat designation if they are already implementing habitat 
conservation and restoration work for the species. This is essential to 
incentivizing continued participation in these efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ ``ESA Basics: 50 Years of Conserving Endangered Species.'' U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service. February 1, 2023.
    \2\ ``Partners in lesser prairie-chicken conservation.'' U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service.

    Robust funding for states and tribes to implement their own 
wildlife habitat conservation and restoration plans, rather than a top-
down federal approach. USFWS has a track record of imposing species 
management plans on specific areas without local buy-in. For example, 
the agency is pursuing translocation of grizzly bears to the North 
Cascades Ecosystem despite years of objections by local ranchers, 
families, and elected officials. H.R. 7408 empowers states and tribes 
to implement their own plans for species--especially predator species--
without having to cave to a federal initiative cooked up a thousand 
miles away. This local leadership is key in ensuring durable solutions, 
as local communities and experts are ultimately those responsible for 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the factors that are able to ensure long-term species conservation.

    Mechanisms to curb the overreach of ``blanket 4(d)'' rules and to 
force USFWS to set concrete, incremental recovery goals that trigger 
state management of the species when met. Over the past half-century, 
the ESA has become a waiting room for species rather than a dynamic, 
tool for listing, recovery, and delisting. This legislation would 
restore the distinction between threatened and endangered listings--per 
Congress's intent in the Act--and create a structure by which USFWS 
would be held accountable for timely delisting when a species hits its 
recovery goals.

    Flexibility for limited take of a threatened species at the 
discretion of the Secretary of the Interior, allowing for management of 
species that are abundant but not yet delisted. This is another key 
measure that will help livestock producers and rural families live with 
listed species--particularly apex predators--with as little danger to 
human life and as little destruction of livestock and property as 
possible. Species recovery plans must be adaptable enough to respond to 
changing conditions and respond to potential dangers, to both humans 
and the species. Unfortunately, today's rigid approach far too enough 
leads to avoidable social and ecological conflict.

    An overdue correction of the inflated ESA consultation burden that 
has fallen on the U.S. Forest Service as a result of Cottonwood 
Environmental Law Center v. United States Forest Service (2015.) The 
wildfire crisis continues to ravage the West each spring, summer, and 
fall, and catastrophic fires are moving further East with each passing 
year. The U.S. Forest Service continues to face budget shortfalls and 
staffing shortages post-COVID-19, and their limited resources must be 
focused on the most immediate threat to the nation's forests. Diverting 
the agency's attention to needless, bureaucratic hoop-jumping shows 
reckless disregard for the critical role national forests play in 
providing wildlife habitat, timber production, grazing land, carbon 
sinks, and headwaters.

    Authority for the National Wildlife Refuge System to leverage 
public-private partnerships to address ecosystem challenges and 
conserve habitat. Extending Good Neighbor Authority to USFWS will 
encourage the maintenance of contiguous habitat, and minimize red tape 
to expedite much-needed range improvements and recreation 
infrastructure.

    Wildlife conservation is a mission that American farmers and 
ranchers hold dear. The presence of healthy wildlife populations brings 
revenue to rural communities through hunting, angling, and tourism. 
Healthy, balanced populations support the health and resiliency of the 
pastures and rangelands that livestock graze for the majority of the 
year. And for many livestock producers, the beauty and enjoyment 
brought by native wildlife is one of the things they love most about 
living, working, and raising their families in rural America. H.R. 7408 
represents a landmark step forward in improving broken aspects of ESA 
implementation and ensuring that the Act can endure for another 50 
years. We urge the Committee to favorably report the America's Wildlife 
Habitat Conservation Act so that the historically fruitful partnership 
between livestock producers and state, Tribal, and federal authorities 
can continue to yield durable conservation results.

            Sincerely,

        National Cattlemen's Beef 
        Assoc.                        Public Lands Council

                                 ______
                                 

                Property and Environment Research Center

                                                  March 4, 2024    

Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Hon. Cliff Bentz, Chair
Hon. Jared Huffman, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries
Natural Resources Committee
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Westerman, Ranking Member Grijalva, Chairman Bentz, 
Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the House Natural Resources 
Committee--Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries Subcommittee:

    Since the Endangered Species Act became law five decades ago, most 
species listed under it have avoided extinction. Only a tiny fraction 
of listed species, however, have ever recovered and come off the list. 
The vast majority remain at risk, not quite plunging over the cliff to 
extinction, but not backing away a safe distance from the edge either. 
The key challenge in the Endangered Species Act's second half-century 
will be to dramatically boost the rate at which endangered and 
threatened species recover.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See ``A Field Guide for Wildlife Recovery,'' PERC Report 
(September 2023).

    The Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) is the national 
leader in market solutions for conservation, with over 40 years of 
research and a network of respected scholars and practitioners. Through 
research, law and policy, and innovative applied conservation projects, 
PERC explores how aligning incentives for environmental stewardship 
produces sustainable outcomes for land, water, and wildlife. We have 
emphasized the importance of making species an asset rather than a 
liability and the dire consequences for wildlife when we get the 
incentives wrong. PERC has also studied how policies can encourage 
collaboration between federal and state wildlife agencies, private 
landowners, and conservation organizations--or can create endless and 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
counterproductive conflict if done wrong.

    The America's Wildlife Habitat Conservation Act (H.R. 7408) is an 
important proposal to promote recovery by fostering collaboration 
between these stakeholders. It recognizes the necessary role of states, 
tribes, and private partners in conserving wildlife. This bill pairs 
$1.6 billion in additional funding for state and tribal wildlife 
conservation efforts with policy reforms that would improve incentives 
for habitat restoration and species recovery efforts. These 
improvements include:

     Incentivizing proactive habitat restoration by rewarding 
            progress toward a species' recovery with incremental 
            regulatory relief.

     Removing duplicative and unnecessary red tape that delays 
            forest restoration and leaves wildlife habitat at risk of 
            catastrophic wildfire.

     Authorizing the Fish and Wildlife Service to partner with 
            states, counties, and tribes to restore habitat in national 
            wildlife refuges.

     Codifying several existing U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
            policies that have helped encourage voluntary species 
            recovery efforts on private lands.

    When it comes to wildlife, we can and should do better. With 
wildlife conservation, the ``how'' is just as important as the ``how 
much.'' By improving incentives for proactive species recovery and 
habitat restoration, America's Wildlife Habitat Conservation Act 
contains several smart ideas for making conservation dollars go further 
for wildlife. These policy reforms have also been supported by 
Republican and Democratic administrations, as well as a large number of 
conservation organizations.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ See Jonathan Wood, ``America's Wildlife Habitat Conservation 
Act, Explained,'' (February 2024).

    Amidst so much conflict over wildlife policy, this bill is a real, 
substantive, and serious solution that addresses real conservation 
challenges. It is an important step to improving the future of species 
recovery. Congress should take this opportunity to support the future 
of wildlife conservation with the America's Wildlife Habitat 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conservation Act.

            Sincerely,

               The Property and Environment Research Center

                                 ______
                                 
  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                                
                              

The full document is available for viewing at:

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II13/20240306/116892/HHRG-
118-II13-20240306-SD018.pdf

                                ------                                


                  Outside Groups Supporting H.R. 7408

     Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

     Boone and Crockett Club

     Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation

     ConservAmerica

     Delta Waterfowl

     Ducks Unlimited

     Property and Environment Research Center

     Federal Forest Research Coalition

     National Alliance of Forest Owners

     Safari Club International

     Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

     Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

     National Cattlemen's Beef Association

     The Public Lands Council

                                 ______
                                 

                  Associated Builders and Contractors

                             Washington, DC

                                                  March 6, 2024    

Hon. Cliff Bentz, Chair
Hon. Jared Huffman, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries
Natural Resources Committee
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman and Members of the 
Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and 
Fisheries:

    On behalf of Associated Builders and Contractors, a national 
construction industry trade association with 68 chapters representing 
more than 23,000 members, I write today to thank you for holding a 
legislative hearing on H.R. 7408, America's Wildlife Habitat 
Conservation Act. ABC is thankful for the subcommittee's continued 
examination of how the Endangered Species Act is implemented by federal 
agencies, its practical impacts on the American people, how litigation 
is driving ESA decision-making and how success is defined under the 
ESA.

    ABC supports the ESA's purpose of protecting species threatened 
with extinction and recognizes the need for science-based, data-driven 
actions that conserve those species and the habitats on which they 
depend. ABC believes that reforms to modernize the ESA, including 
efforts to make the act's consultations more efficient and effective, 
are needed as the Biden administration implements over $1 trillion in 
federal spending for critical infrastructure, energy and technology 
projects throughout the country.

    The AWHCA would require the federal government to establish 
objective, incremental recovery goals for species listed under the ESA 
and provide relief from regulations when those goals are met. By 
investing $320 million annually in grant funding to states for wildlife 
habitat conservation, this bill gives states a more active role in 
regulating species, allowing them to better develop their own recovery 
strategies that may become the governing regulations for these species. 
This creates a path toward state management of at-risk species when 
federal goals are met, leading to more efficient delisting of species 
that no longer require federal protections. Additionally, the bill 
provides $20 million in funding for habitat restoration projects and 
forest management on tribal lands and encourages private partners to 
conserve listed species.

    ABC understands that a collaborative effort among states, tribes, 
private landowners and the federal government will lead to a more 
efficient ESA designed to better serve our nation's communities and 
endangered species. By providing these partners with the proper tools 
and incentives, the AWHCA will streamline the ESA, reduce regulation 
and remove unnecessary permitting hurdles that a one-size-fits-all 
federal government approach has proven incapable of doing. ABC hopes 
that the AWHCA will lead to better outcomes for species and, in turn, 
reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on our nation's builders and 
contractors and their construction services clients.

    ABC encourages the consideration of H.R. 7408 and further efforts 
to improve and modernize the ESA. ABC members stand ready for the 
opportunity to build and maintain America's infrastructure to the 
benefit of the communities that it will serve and appreciates your 
consideration of our concerns.

            Sincerely,

                                        Kristen Swearingen,
                    Vice President, Legislative & Political Affairs

                                 ______
                                 

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Huffman

                                                  March 5, 2024    

Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member
Natural Resources Committee
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Opposition to H.R. 7408, the ``America's Wildlife Habitat 
        Conservation Act''

    Dear Chairman Westerman and Ranking Member Grijalva:

    On behalf of our 70+ organizations and our millions of members and 
supporters, we write to express our strong opposition to H.R. 7408, the 
America's Wildlife Habitat and Conservation Act. This bill is a 
transparent attempt to weaken the Endangered Species Act and hamstring 
the conservation of our most imperiled species and their habitats. It 
also undermines a years-long bipartisan effort to pass the Recovering 
America's Wildlife Act (``RAWA''), which would provide $1.4 billion to 
address extinction and biodiversity loss in the United States and is 
widely supported by many Members of Congress from both parties, States, 
Indigenous communities, and conservation and sporting groups. Unlike 
RAWA, however, H.R. 7408 is a partisan bill that was introduced with 
little to no input from impacted stakeholders, including state wildlife 
agencies. This bill would also cut over a billion dollars in Inflation 
Reduction Act funding for NOAA, the Council on Environmental Quality, 
and the Bureau of Reclamation, further harming habitat and wildlife by 
taking away vital habitat restoration resources. Thus, we urge you to 
oppose H.R. 7408.
    H.R. 7408 would authorize $300 million per year for the next five 
years for state wildlife conservation. This comes far short of the 
funds needed to stop the decline of at-risk species across the country. 
Based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's own estimates, it would 
cost approximately $1.6-$2.3 billion to save federally listed species 
alone. An exponential increase in funding--on par with RAWA--is needed 
to save the thousands of additional unlisted species that continue to 
decline across the country. Further, H.R. 7408 does not guarantee 
funding, but rather makes it dependent on sufficient Congressional 
appropriations. Given Congress' polarization and difficulty passing 
annual appropriations bills, it is highly unlikely that Congress would 
ever allocate the full $300 million. Moreover, the bill would only make 
it significantly harder to address the wholly inadequate level of 
annual appropriations for the Endangered Species Act, a problem which 
our organizations strongly support remedying. The bill also drastically 
cuts funding for tribal wildlife conservation from $97 million in RAWA 
to only $20 million.
    H.R. 7408 would also gut critical protections for hundreds of 
threatened and endangered species across the country, and undermine 
basic scientific processes. For instance, Title V includes the Forest 
Information Reform (FIR) Act, which eliminates reinitiation of 
consultation requirements under the Endangered Species Act designed to 
ensure that federal land management decisions are not driving species 
toward extinction. Specifically, this section expands the 2018 
``Cottonwood'' rider--which exempts land management agencies from 
updating their plans when a species is newly listed under the Act or 
when critical habitat is designated--to now exempt those agencies from 
updating their plans based on ``new information'' about the harm 
occurring to endangered species that live on public lands.
    Such new information often includes the increasingly severe impacts 
of climate change, including drought and uncharacteristic forest and 
grassland or sagebrush fires, which are rapidly degrading and 
destroying endangered species habitat. Reinitiation of consultations at 
the plan level is extremely rare but incredibly important. The Forest 
Service's own data show that compliance with existing law is not a 
burden. In fact, there were only four instances in 2022 where a 
national forest was required to reinitiate consultation on a forest 
plan--and none were based on any of the three reasons above.
    Additionally, H.R. 7408 includes an extreme provision which would 
strip protections for threatened species by allowing states to develop 
their own recovery strategy for the species, which can then be used as 
the basis for an individual 4(d) rule under Section 4 of the Act--even 
if such strategy is not based on the best available science. The bill 
would further weaken 4(d) rules by forcing the Services to build in 
provisions to those rules that weaken protective regulations as the 
species meets recovery goals, forcing the agencies to sabotage their 
own recovery goals as they achieve success. The bill also weakens 
protections for more than 70% of listed species that depend on private 
lands by severely limiting when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can 
designate critical habitat on such lands, and codifies into law a 
wholly inadequate process for protecting ``candidate'' species, which 
are plants and animals that warrant protections under the Act but are 
precluded by higher priority listing activities.
    Title III of H.R. 7408 would extend Good Neighbor and Stewardship 
Contracting Authorities (GNA) and Stewardship End Results Contracting 
(SA) to lands managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, non-
Federal land, and land owned by an Indian Tribe ostensibly for 
``restoration'' and recreation activities. However, the bill 
fundamentally changes these authorities in a manner that subverts the 
authority of the Secretary of Interior, creates perverse incentives 
that can lead to damaging activities, and waives relevant laws. 
Specifically, for GNA contracts, the bill allows for commercial logging 
in exchange for conducting restoration activities. Logging may occur on 
federal lands and appears to not be limited to Service lands. The bill 
also requires the Secretary of Interior to approve logging 
prescriptions on all timber sale projects, relinquishing her authority 
to approve or modify logging prescriptions. Even more concerning, 
revenue from commercial logging activities can be retained by the 
governor, county or tribe. Retaining revenues to generate funds for 
restoration creates a perverse incentive to increase commercial 
logging, which most often harms ecosystems.
    Title III also allows for Stewardship Contracts including logging 
``without regard to any other provision of law.'' This could result in 
logging of mature and old growth forests, logging of other sensitive 
habitat as well as building new and temporary roads which most often 
fragment and degrade habitat and water quality as well as contribute to 
elevated fire risks. GNA are also available for recreation activities 
which may be harmful to or not compatible with lands managed by the 
Service, including shooting ranges, permanent paved roads, and other 
infrastructure.
    For these reasons, we urge you to oppose H.R. 7408.

            Sincerely,

        Center for Biological 
        Diversity                     Natural Resources Defense Council

        Alameda Creek Alliance        New Hampshire Audubon

        Alaska Wilderness League      North Central Washington Audubon 
                                      Society

        American Bird Conservancy     Northern California Council, Fly 
                                      Fishers International

        Animal Legal Defense Fund     NY4WHALES

        Animal Welfare Institute      Oceanic Preservation Society

        Born Free USA                 Oregon Wild

        Cetacean Society 
        International                 Predator Defense

        Christian Council of 
        Delmarva                      Project Coyote

        Creation Justice Ministries   Project Eleven Hundred

        Defenders of Wildlife         Resource Renewal Institute

        Earthjustice                  Save Animals Facing Extinction

        Endangered Habitats League    Save the Manatee Club

        Endangered Species 
        Coalition                     Sierra Club

        Environmental Law & Policy 
        Center                        Silvix Resources
        Environmental Protection 
        Information Center-EPIC       Southern Environmental Law Center

        FOUR PAWS USA                 Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance

        Friends of the Earth          The #RelistWolves Campaign

        Friends of Wisconsin Wolf 
        and Wildlife                  The Conservation Angler

        Humane Action Pennsylvania    The Urban Wildlands Group

        Humane Action Pittsburgh      Trap Free Montana

        Inland Ocean Coalition        Turtle Island Restoration Network

        Interfaith Power & Light      Voice for Animals of Maine and 
                                      New Hampshire

        International Marine Mammal 
        Project of Earth Island 
        Institute                     Washington Wildlife First

        Kentucky Heartwood            Waterkeeper Alliance

        Klamath Forest Alliance       Western Nebraska Resources 
                                      Council

        Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands 
        Center                        Western Watersheds Project

        League of Conservation 
        Voters                        WildEarth Guardians

        Los Angeles Audubon Society   Wilderness Watch

        Los Padres ForestWatch        Wilderness Workshop

        Maine Audubon                 Wolf Conservation Center

        Marine Mammal Alliance 
        Nantucket                     World Animal Protection

        Mass Audubon                  Wyoming Untrapped

        National Ocean Protection 
        Coalition                     Wyoming Wildlife Advocates

        National Wolfwatcher 
        Coalition                     Xerces Society for Invertebrate 
                                      Conservation

        Natural Resources Council 
        of Maine

                                 ______
                                 
                                                  March 6, 2024    

Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Hon. Cliff Bentz, Chair
Hon. Jared Huffman, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries
Natural Resources Committee
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Council on Environmental Quality Funding Cuts in H.R. 7408, 
        America's Wildlife Conservation Act

    Dear Chair Bentz and Ranking Member Huffman:

    We are writing to express our strong opposition to provisions in 
H.R. 7408, America's Wildlife Conservation Act,'' that will completely 
rescind critical funding to the White House Council on Environmental 
Quality (CEQ). Under the guise of wildlife conservation legislation, 
provisions in this bill would fundamentally undermine CEQ's ability to 
ensure federal decisionmaking adequately and efficiently considers not 
only wildlife conservation, but also critical issues related to 
environmental justice, public health, and environmental consequences of 
essential infrastructure and energy development across the federal 
government.
    Section 701 of Chair Westerman's bill would repeal $62 million in 
funding to CEQ allocated under sections 60401 and 60402 of the 
Inflation Reduction Act (Public Law 117-169) (IRA). The IRA rightly 
made historic investments across the federal government to facilitate 
timely, efficient, and meaningful environmental reviews. Congress 
established CEQ in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to not 
only serve as the President's and the nation's foremost environmental 
advisor, it also charged CEQ with overseeing the environmental review 
and public engagement process under NEPA for over 80 federal agencies. 
Recognizing the critical role CEQ plays in ensuring the federal 
government meet national conservation and climate goals, Congress 
allocated money to CEQ fulfill its considerable statutory mandates.
    Specifically, the IRA allocated $32 million to support data 
collection and disclosure of disproportionate impacts of climate change 
as well as the cumulative impacts of pollution and temperature rise. An 
additional $30 million was provided to provide CEQ with the resources 
necessary to carry out efficient environmental reviews, enhance 
government transparency, and improve community engagement. These 
investments in CEQ, which historically has had an anemic budget of 
around $3 million dollars, could transform the efficiency and quality 
of agency decisionmaking across the federal government. Withdrawing the 
funding at a time when the Nation is making historic investments in 
infrastructure and a clean energy economy will only serve to slow down 
permitting, sideline meaningful public input, ossify historic 
environmental injustices, and codify climate denial in to agency 
decisionmaking.
    We strongly urge you to oppose this legislation.

            Sincerely,

        Center for Biological 
        Diversity                     Oxfam
        Earthjustice                  Sierra Club
        Environmental Law & Policy 
        Center                        Southern Environmental Law Center
        GreenLatinos                  Union of Concerned Scientists
        League of Conservation 
        Voters                        WE ACT for Environmental Justice
        Natural Resources Defense 
        Council

                                 ______
                                 
                                                  March 6, 2024    

Hon. Cliff Bentz, Chair
Hon. Jared Huffman, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries
Natural Resources Committee
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Coastal Resilience Funding Cuts in H.R. 7408, America's Wildlife 
        Habitat Conservation Act

    Dear Chair Bentz and Ranking Member Huffman:

    We are writing to express our strong opposition to Congressman 
Bruce Westerman's H.R. 7408, ``America's Wildlife Habitat Conservation 
Act'' with specific concern about the provision that would rescind 
critically needed funds for coastal resilience at the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This bill is posing as wildlife 
conservation legislation, when further inspection shows that this bill 
is instead working to revoke funding from critical programs for 
conservation.
    In regard to the ocean specifically, Chair Westerman's bill would 
repeal $700 million in funding allocated to the NOAA under Section 
40001 of the Inflation Reduction Act (Public Law 117-169) (IRA). The 
IRA was the most significant investment in climate and clean energy in 
our nation's history. The funding to NOAA was essential to combating 
the climate crisis and readying our nation to be resilient against 
increasing climate impacts. Unfortunately, Chair Westerman's bill is 
hardly unique as we have seen Republican Members of Congress make 
numerous attempts to undo IRA provisions since it was passed in 2022.
    We applauded the Inflation Reduction Act's historic investment of 
$2.6 billion for NOAA to invest in coastal communities and climate 
resilience. This funding was intended to be used for conservation, 
restoration, and protection of coastal and marine habitats and 
resources, including fisheries, to enable coastal communities to 
prepare for extreme storms and other changing climate conditions, and 
for projects that support natural resources that sustain coastal and 
marine resource dependent communities.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ CleanEnergy.gov. Building a Clean Energy Economy: A Guidebook 
to the Inflation Reduction Act's Investments in Clean Energy and 
Climate Action https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/
Inflation-Reduction-Act-Guidebook.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The ocean and coastal impacts of climate change are already 
impacting daily activities in communities across the US. Warming 
oceans, rising sea levels, shifting fish stocks, melting sea ice, ocean 
acidification, frequent and intense floods, severe storms, and droughts 
all require building resilience. Sea levels are expected to rise up to 
a foot along the U.S. coastlines in the next 30 years, with damaging 
flooding expected to occur more than 10 times as often as it does 
today. This will create a profound shift in coastal flooding, causing 
tide and storm surge heights to increase and reach further inland. 
Failing to curb future emissions could cause an additional 1.5-5 feet 
of rise. Flooding already exacerbates racial and social inequality, 
with a history of disproportionate harms for communities of color. 
Coastal flooding will become an increasingly severe environmental 
justice issue as sea levels rise.
    The ocean and coasts are critical to all Americans as ports of 
commerce, food sources, carbon sinks, and more. Resilience investments 
create a multitude of co-benefits such as creating jobs, reducing 
disaster losses, protecting critical habitat, and supporting US 
innovation. An investment in coastal resilience is an investment in 
America's future.
    Coastal resilience funding at NOAA is already making its way into 
communities and regions around the country that need it most. The 
Climate Resilience Regional Challenge and Climate-Ready Workforce 
funding opportunities will build historic workforce capacity and 
implement adaptation actions which will protect communities, military 
bases, and ecosystems.\2\ The Climate Resilience Accelerator is funding 
critical private sector solutions, demonstrating the power of public-
private partnerships and creating jobs for Americans. Climate-Ready 
Fisheries investments are currently protecting and managing America's 
iconic fish populations. The $2.6 billion invested in the US coastal 
regions by Congress is already making a difference by building more 
resilient economies, ecosystems, and communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Inflation 
Reduction Act: Climate-Ready Coasts and Communities https://
www.noaa.gov/inflation-reduction-act/inflation-reduction-act-climate-
ready-coasts-and-communities
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These projects will create new jobs in a wide variety of sectors, 
from construction to fishermen to planners to engineers, for coastal 
restoration requires specialized skills that cannot be mechanized or 
exported. The surrounding coastal environments also benefit from 
restored natural infrastructure like salt marshes, mangroves, and 
seagrass beds, which remove carbon from the atmosphere, reduce storm 
impacts, and provide habitat for fish and wildlife. Trying to reverse 
this funding now would be a detriment to constituents, districts, and 
states around the country.
    The bill's funding cut to NOAA will have severe ocean and 
environmental justice implications, with Indigenous communities facing 
a particularly acute impact. Within the $2.6 billion to NOAA from the 
IRA, NOAA has stated they will provide approximately $390 million for 
tribal priorities that incorporate comments received during the IRA 
tribal consultation. Without this funding, technical assistance and 
capacity building will be reduced, perpetuating environmental 
injustices. Tribes and Tribal communities have stewarded the ocean 
since time immemorial and must continue to rely on it for subsistence, 
food security, and traditional ways of life and culture.
    Clawing back $700 million of Inflation Reduction Act funds 
designated for coastal resilience funding at NOAA, as Rep. Westerman's 
bill attempts to do, would move us in the wrong direction toward 
preparing our coastal communities for climate impacts and advancing 
environmental justice. In fact, grant applications for NOAA show that 
this program is dramatically underfunded, with a recent request for 
proposals generating 869 eligible letters of intent requesting 
approximately $16 billion in funding. It is clear that ocean, coastal, 
and Great Lakes communities across the nation urgently need this 
funding and they are ready to implement it now.
    We urge you to consider the severe implications of this bill in the 
Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries Subcommittee hearing, ensure this bill 
does not move forward to a markup, halt the bill from being reported 
out of committee, and vote no on H.R. 7408, America's Wildlife Habitat 
Conservation Act, if it reaches the House floor.

            Sincerely,

        Alaska Wilderness League      Milwaukee Riverkeeper

        Animal Welfare Institute      Mystic Aquarium

        Azul                          National Marine Sanctuary 
                                      Foundation

        California Environmental 
        Voters                        National Ocean Protection 
                                      Coalition

        Californians for Western 
        Wilderness                    Natural Resources Defense Council

        Center for Biological 
        Diversity                     New York League of Conservation 
                                      Voters

        Center for the Blue Economy   Ocean Conservancy

        Cetacean Society 
        International                 Ocean Conservation Research

        Chispa Texas                  Ocean Defense Initiative

        Clean Water Action            Oceana

        Climate Law & Policy 
        Project                       Oceanic Preservation Society

        Coastal Quest                 Pacific Environment

        Coastal States Organization   Patagonia

        Cooperative Energy Futures    Rachel Carson Council

        Creation Justice Ministries   Restore America's Estuaries

        EarthEcho International       Sachamama

        Earthjustice                  Save the Manatee Club
        Endangered Species 
        Coalition                     Seattle Aquarium

        Florida Wildlife Federation   Shedd Aquarium

        FOUR PAWS USA                 Sierra Club

        Friends of the Earth U.S.     Sustainable Ocean Alliance

        Friends of the Mariana 
        Trench                        Southern Environmental Law Center

        Georgia Interfaith Power 
        and Light                     Surfrider Foundation

        Gotham Whale                  Sustain Cities

        GreenLatinos                  The #RelistWolves Campaign

        Healthy Ocean Coalition       The Ocean Project

        Inland Ocean Coalition        Union of Concerned Scientists

        Interfaith Power & Light      Urban Ocean Lab

        League of Conservation 
        Voters                        Waterfront Alliance

        Marine Conservation 
        Institute                     Waterkeeper Alliance

        Marine Mammal Alliance 
        Nantucket