S. HRG. 115–77 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 1514, THE HUNTING 

HERITAGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL LEGACY 

PRESERVATION (HELP) FOR WILDLIFE ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 19, 2017 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 1514, THE HUNTING HERITAGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL LEGACY PRESERVATION 

(HELP) FOR WILDLIFE ACT 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

26–784 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 115–77 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 1514, THE HUNTING 

HERITAGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL LEGACY 

PRESERVATION (HELP) FOR WILDLIFE ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 19, 2017 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

KAMALA HARRIS, California 

RICHARD M. RUSSELL, Majority Staff Director 

GABRIELLE BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JULY 19, 2017 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 1 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 66 

WITNESSES 

Nesvik, Brian, Chief Game Warden, Wyoming Game and Fish Department .... 69 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 72 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Barrasso ........................... 84 

Crow, Jeff, Director, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission ............................... 90 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 92 

Hall, Dale, CEO, Ducks Unlimited, and former Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ............................................................................................................ 97 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 99 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Wicker .............................. 106 

Coble, Kim, Vice President, Environmental Protection and Restoration, the 

Chesapeake Bay Foundation ............................................................................... 108 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 110 

Response to an additional question from Senator Barrasso ......................... 118 

Vucetich, John, Ph.D., Associate Professor, School of Forest Resources and 

Environmental Science, Michigan Technological University ............................ 197 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 199 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

S. 1514, the Hunting Heritage and Environmental Legacy Preservation 

(HELP) for Wildlife Act ....................................................................................... 235 

An Open Letter to Members of Congress and the White House from Scientists 

and Scholars on Federal Wolf Delisting and Congressional Intervention 

on Individual Species in the Context of the U.S. Endangered Species Act, 

July 18, 2017 ........................................................................................................ 298 

Letter to Senators Barrasso and Carper from The Humane Society of the 

United States, July 24, 2017 ............................................................................... 317 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 1514, THE 

HUNTING HERITAGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

LEGACY PRESERVATION (HELP) FOR WILDLIFE ACT 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 19, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Inhofe, Boozman, Fischer, 

Moran, Rounds, Ernst, Cardin, Gillibrand, Booker, and Harris. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Good morning. I call this legislative hearing 

to order. 

Today we are here to talk about S. 1514, the Hunting Heritage 

and Environmental Legacy Preservation for Wildlife Act, HELP for 

Wildlife. The bill is comprehensive. It is bipartisan, designed to enhance recreational hunting and sport fishing activities, to ensure 

common sense environmental regulation, and to protect wildlife 

and wildlife habitat. 

I introduce this bipartisan bill along with Senators Cardin and 

Capito and Klobuchar and Boozman and Baldwin. The bill has 

been additionally cosponsored by Senators Enzi, King, and Johnson. I thank them for working with me and crafting the legislation 

that the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership has called 

the strongest legislative package of sportsmen’s priorities in years. 

The HELP for Wildlife Act does a number of things. First, it protects wildlife and wildlife habitat across the country by reauthorizing important environmental programs. Among others, the bill reauthorizes until 2023 the North American Wetlands Conservation 

Act, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Act, the 

Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act, the Chesapeake Bay 

Program, and the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Grants Assistance 

Program. 

The bill also provides for enhanced recreational shooting and 

sport fishing activities. The bill finalizes partnerships among public 

agencies and other interested parties for promoting fish conservation across the country that will create new recreational sport fishing activities and opportunities. 

2 

The bill also ensures that lead tackle, which is widely used by 

anglers, is not unnecessarily regulated under the Toxic Substances 

Control Act, a position reaffirmed twice by the Obama administration. The bill also promotes the building and expansion of public 

target ranges for recreational shooting. 

Finally, this bill ensures common sense environmental regulation 

that protects species, as well as farmers and ranchers. The bill prevents farmers from being held liable for bird baiting for hunting 

purposes if they adhere to USDA and State agriculture best practices. 

The bill also prohibits judicial review of the final Obama administration rule delisting the recovered gray wolf in Wyoming that 

was reinstated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on March 3rd of 2017 and republished on May 1st of 2017. 

The bill also mandates the reissuance of the final rule delisting the 

gray wolf in the western Great Lakes, and it prohibits judicial review. 

The HELP for Wildlife Act has garnered tremendous support 

from the environmental and the sportsmen’s communities. Over 50 

different organizations have endorsed the HELP for Wildlife Act, 

diverse groups such as Ducks Unlimited, which will be testifying 

today; the National Wildlife Federation; Trout Unlimited; the 

Chesapeake Bay Foundation; the Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies; the Choose Clean Water Coalition; the American Sport 

Fishing Association; Boone & Crockett Club; Safari Club International; the Congressional Sportsmen Foundation; and the Rocky 

Mountain Elk Foundation, just to name a few. 

Many groups in my home State of Wyoming have also submitted 

written testimony in support of the bill, including the Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts, the Wyoming Stock Growers 

Association, the Wyoming Farm Bureaus Federation, the Wyoming 

Wool Growers Association, and the Wyoming County Commissioners Association. Former Democrat Governor Dave Freudenthal, 

who I think e-mailed you yesterday, has also submitted written testimony in support of the HELP for Wildlife Act. 

I ask that all their written testimonies be submitted for the 

record. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

3 


26784.001

July 14, 2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

307 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Benjamin Cardin 

509 Hart Senate Office Building 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senator Barrasso and Senator Cardin: 

On behalf of Trout Unlimited and its 300,000 members and supporters, I commend you and 

your co-sponsors for introducing the S. 1514, The HELP for Wildlife Act of 2017. Your bill 

includes valuable provisions to conserve fish and wildlife habitat that will sustain outstanding 

hunting and fishing opportunities in all of your states. We appreciate the strong leadership that 

you, and the bill's bipartisan co-sponsors, have demonstrated on sportsmen's conservation 

issues. 

The bill includes the reauthorization of some of our nation's most successful conservation 

programs such as the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, and the National Fish and 

Wildlife Foundation (NFWF). NFWF has been especially valuable to Trout Unlimited for many 

years, providing funding for some of the Nation's best stream and river restoration projects. 

For example, in Wyoming, TU partnered with landowners and the State to implement projects 

throughout the Greybull River drainage, including culvert improvement and riparian restoration 

projects that restore and reconnect historical habitat for Yellowstone cutthroat trout. 

HELP would also reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Program. The Chesapeake is one of the 

Nation's hunting and fishing gems. Damaged by nutrient pollution, the Bay is making a good 

comeback due to the Chesapeake Bay program and the incredible partnership of state, federal, 

local, farming and conservation interests. In the Bay's headwaters in West Virginia and Virginia, 

TU has had good success using Chesapeake Bay and NFWF funds to work with farmers to 

restore streams, thereby improving fishing in the mountains but also improving water quality in 

the Bay. 

A mission to conserve, protect, & restore North America's coldwater fisheries and their watersheds. 

National Office: 1777 N Kent St., Suite 100, Arlington, VA 22209 

T: (703) 284~9406 F: (703) 284·9400 smoyer(gJtu.org www.tu.org 
4 


26784.002

We are especially pleased that the bill includes the National Fish Habitat Conservation Act, 

which would encourage fish habitat partnerships nationwide to work with landowners of all 

types to achieve broad scale fisheries benefits. Nineteen partnerships are already underway, 

restoring fish habitat from Alaska to Maine, and this bill will ensure that those partnerships will 

be sustained and enhanced. 

The lynch pin to all of these programs is partnership. These programs bring together a broad 

range of partners to protect and restore thousands of miles and acres of habitat, leverage state, 

federal and non-profit funding sources as matching dollars, and to assist private landowners 

with conservation. Together, these habitat programs have amassed years of proven 

conservation and partnership successes, and this bill will make sure that these successes 

continue. 

Thank you introducing the HELP for Wildlife Act. We look forward to its swift and successful 

passage. 

Sincerely, 

Steve Moyer 

Vice President for Government Affairs 

Trout Unlimited 

Arlington, VA 

Tasha Sorenson 

Wyoming Sportsman Conservation Project 

Coordinator 

Cheyenne, WY 

Cc: Senators Boozman, Klobuchar, Capito, Baldwin, and Crapo. 

Page2of2 
5 


26784.003

RlFIGPUL 

INDUSTRIES ICDR'P 

8226 BEE CAVE ROAD AUSTIN, TEXAS 7Bl4G • WWW.MAGPUL.~OM • l.Bl7.4MAGPUL • CAGE !LX 50 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chair, Senate EPW Committee 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Thomas Carper 

July 14,2017 

Ranking Member, Senate EPW Committee 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Re: Support for The Huuting Heritage and Environmental Legacy Preservation 

for Wildlife Act (8.1514). 

Dear Senators: 

Magpul Industries is an intcmationalleader in the design and manufacturing of firearm 

magazines and accessories. Our U.S. manufactured products are used by combat soldiers, 

competitive shooters, firearm enthusiasts, and sportsmen. 

As a company that places the highest value on freedom, personal responsibility and individual 

choice, and actively supports sportsmen and conservation efforts, Magpul Industries writes this 

letter strongly supporting The Hunting Heritage and Environmental Legacy Preservation for 

Wildlife Act (S.l514). American sportsmen and firearm enthusiasts are the most conservationminded and responsible citizens of our country and this bill will strengthen and enhance 

sportsmen oppmtunities and critical conservation efforts in the U.S. 

There are many aspects of S.1514 that Magpul supports, but there are several aspects of the bill 

that we can attest will provide immediate and significant benefits. For instance, Section 2 will 

facilitate the building of additional public shooting ranges that are desperately needed across the 

country. The expansion of public ranges will allow more firearm owners to exercise their 2nd 

Amendment rights and facilitate new firearm owners to learn how to safely and responsibly 

handle a firearm. In addition, as competitive shooting become extremely popular, these new 

ranges will support the growth of this sport. 

U.S. public lands are a treasure for the American people. It is important that we create new 

opportunities for citizens to embrace and utilize these public lands. It is equally important that 

we support efforts that conserve these public lands and ensure that we are acting as responsible 
6 


26784.004

8226 BEE CAVE ~0.~0 AUSTIN, TEXAS lB14G • WWW.M11GPUL.COM • LnllAMAGPIJL • CAGE 1LX50 

stewmds of these lands for the next generation. For these reasons, Magpul supports S.l514 's 

objective of enhancing and protecting public lands. 

Magpul supports The Hunting Heritage and Environmental Legacy Preservation for Wildlife Act 

and appreciates your consideration of this letter. lf you would like to discuss this issue further 

please contact me directly or our Director of Government and International Relations, Colonel 

Tray J. Ardcsc USMC (rcL) tardcsc(cj)magn!lLcQlll or (843)-271-5269. 

Duane Liptak, Jr. 

Executive Vice President, Magpullndustries Corp 
7 


26784.005

July 13,2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chair. Senate EPW Committee 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg 

Washington. DC 20510 

Rc: Comments on S. 1514. the IIELP for Wildlife i\ct 

N N A 

The Honorable Thomas Carper 

Ranking Member. Senate EPV/ Committee 

456 DirJ..sen Senate Oflice Bldg 

\Va~hington, D.C. 205 !0 

Chairman Barrasso and members of the Senate Envimnment and Public \\1orks Committee. 

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) would like to thank you tor holding a hearing on S 1514. the 

Hunting Heritage and Environmental Legacy Preservation (IIELP) for \Vi!dlifc Act. We strongly support 

several key provisions ofthi~ bill and encourage you to pass it\\ ithout dela.y. 

Section 2 of the bill \\Ou!J provide state and federal agencies greater flexibility to use federal Pittman~ 

Robertson funds fOr construction of public recreational sbooting ranges. Since Pittman-Robertson funds are 

collected from excise taxes on firearms, ammunition and archery equipment, an appropriate amount should be 

designated for shooting ranges that will help recruit and retain recreational shooters and expand hunter 

education opportunities. 

\Ve arc also fully in support of this bill's requirements t(w the Interior Department to reissue final rules for gray 

\'\'olves in Wyoming and in the Western Great Lakes. states. State management of gray \\Oivcs \vas recently 

restored in Wyoming as a result of a court decision. but the possibility o!'rcvcr.-.ing it remains unless judicial 

review is preempted~ns provided in this bill. 

Much like Idaho. Montana and Wyoming, gray wolves have t~tr exceeded recovery goals in the \\/estern Great 

Lakes stal~s ofMichignn. Minnesota and Wisconsin and no longer requin: federal protection. This bill would 

require the lntL:rior Dcrnrtmcnt to reissue its 20 I ! final ruiL' removing gra) '-VOivL:s in the Vv'estern Great Lakes 

states and prevent further judicial review of this decision. 

Gray wolves have had a significant impact on elk, deer, other \\ildlitC and livestock. We remain confident 

wildlitC agencies in these states, through public hunting and trapping, \vi!! be able to strike a balance ror gray 

wolf and ungulate populution management. 

Thank you fl1r the opportunity to C()mmcnt on this important legislation. 

David Allen 

President & CEO 

{DOO) VVW'NRMEFORG 

N 
8 


26784.006

Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin 

United States Senator-Maryland 

509 Hart Senate Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Cardin, 

BLUE 

WATEr~ 

BALTIMORE 

Blue Water Baltimore would like to thank you for your continued commitment to improving water 

quality in the Chesapeake !lay with the introduction ofS. 1514 the Hunting Heritage and 

Environmental Legacy Preservation [HELP) for Wildlife Act. We value your leadership to 

strengthenS. 1514 to include key provisions for the Bay· including reauthorizing the EPA 

Chesapeake Bay Program at $90 million for 5 years and the reauthorization of the Chesapeake 

Gateways Grant Assistance Program for 5 years. 

1\s you are aware the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation plays a key role in administering grant 

pmgrams in the Chesapeake which are critical to implementation of many of Blue Water 

Baltimore's programming. Reauthorization of the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation ensures our 

organization will have the opportunity to implement key stormwate1· management practices here in 

Baltimore to protect all of our Baltimore watersheds while improving the quality oflife for all 

Baltimore City residents. 

We fill a unique role in the Baltimore area as we usc a holistic set of programs to meet the great 

challenges of improving water quality. As the new Executive Director, I am thrilled to be working 

for an organization that utilizes practices from arts and education. to storm water management 

projects, to legal and legislative advocacy to effect change on the ground and is passionate about 

citizen engagement to build awareness on the impact of pollution. 

As 2017 has brought ahout a new set of policy challenges, our organization is reassured to know we 

have strong Chesapeake Bay advocates on the Hill working to ensure our Bay continues to grow 

healthier. Thank you again for your commitment to Baltimore City, the state of Maryland, and the 

Chesapeake Bay! 

Kindest Regards, 

pl; 

a 

Executive Director 

Blue Water Baltimore 

2631 Sisson StrtJot • Baltimore, MD 21211 • ~10.254.1577 • www.bluewaterbaltimore.org 
9 


26784.007

Blue Water Baltimore would like to thank 

for co-sponsoring the HELP 

for Wildlife Act. 
10 


26784.008

CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION 

Savir1g a Nationcll Tn.'mmre 

CBF Statement on S. 1514, the Hunting Heritage and 

Environmental Legacy Preservation (HELP) for Wildlife Act 

On June 30, U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY), chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and 

Public Works (EPW), joined with Senators Ben Cardin (D-MD), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Amy 

Klobuchar (D-MN), John 13oozman (R-AR), and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) to introduceS. 1514, the 

Hunting Heritage and Environmental Legacy Preservation (HELP) tor Wildlife Act. 

Chesapeake Bay Foundation President William C. Baker issued this statement in response to the bill: 

"Hunting and lishing communities arc among the Chesapeake Bay's most dedicated conservationists. This 

bill will extend programs to help Bay states and local communities meet their goals in the Chesapeake 

Bay Agreement, from restoring vital habitats for fish and wildlife to supporting local stewardship and 

public access. CBF applauds the effons of Senators Cardin and Capito in advancing this important 

legislation." 

The bill will extend programs important to Bay restoration until 2023. Action on the legislation is 

expected in the next jew weeks. Programs that would be extended include: 

The Chesapeake Bay Program, which was created under President Ronald Reagan to support the 

voluntary Chesapeake Bay Agreement. It is a unique regional partnership that brings together 

leaders and experts from a vast range of agencies and organizations. Over 60% of funds go to 

states, primarily through grants programs that leverage private investment for restoration 

activities in support of the Bay Agreement. Program funds are also used to coordinate the 

complex science, research, modeling, monitoring, data collection, and other activities essential to 

collaboration. This bill would reauthorize the program at $90M per year. 

The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Act, which supports public and private conservation 

efforts. For example, the Foundation administers the Chesapeake Bay Stewardship Fund. which 

last year included $12M in grants dedicated to protecting and restoring the Bay. 

The Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails network and Gateways Grants Assistance 

Program, which connects the public with the Chesapeake Bay through parks, wildlife refuges, 

museums, and historic communities. 

The North American Wetlands Conservation Act, which provides grants to protect and manage 

wetland habitats tor migratory birds and other wetland wildlife. The Chesapeake Bay is the 

largest estuary in the United States and stages or winters millions of waterfowl and other wetland 

dependent migratory birds every year. 

The legislation will also codify the National Fish Habitat Partnership, which will support locally-led tish 

conservation through the collaboration of public agencies, private citizens, and nonprofit organizations. 
11 


26784.009

Chesapeake Bay Found 

THANK YOU & 

for your leadership introducing 

the HELP for Wildlife Act! This legislation will 

help the 
12 


26784.010

Statement:Legislation Supports Key 

Chesapeake Bay Programs 

July 12th, 2017 

(http://chesapeakeconservancy.org/2017/071) 

Annapolis, MD- On Monday, a bipartisan group of Senators including Senator Ben Cardin (D-MO) 

and Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) introduced a bill titled the Hunting Heritage and 

Environmental Legacy Preservation (HELP) for Wildlife Act(S. 1514) which would reauthorize 

several federal programs vital to outdoor recreation and conservation stewardship in the 

Chesapeake Bay. 

Among other provisions, the HELP Wildlife Act 

would increase the authorized funding level for 

the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program to $90 

million, the highest amount in the program's 

history. The bill would also extend authorization 

for the Chesapeake Bay Program until 2023. 

The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) is a 

regional partnership that has coordinated the 

restoration of the Chesapeake Bay since 1983. In 

addition to coordinating restoration science, 

modeling, and monitoring, the Chesapeake Bay 

Program provides critical funding to state and 

local governments to reduce pollution and funding to universities and non profits to support 

projects improving water quality. 

Additionally, The HELP Wildlife Act would extend authorization for the Chesapeake Bay 

Gateways and Watertrails program until 2023. Established by Congress in 1998, the Gateways 

program enhances conservation stewardship by connecting people with the Chesapeake Bay 

through outdoor recreation opportunities, exhibits and interpretive trail sign age, and youth 

programs. Since 2000, the Gateways program has allowed the National Park Service 

Chesapeake Bay Office to provide more than $13 million in financial and technical assistance for 

more than 300 projects in communities in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. 

The HELP Wildlife Act extends six year authorizations for several other programs Important to 

conservation and wildlife in the Chesapeake Bay, including for the North American Wetlands 

Conservation Act, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and the Neotropical Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act. 
13 


26784.011

Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) sponsored the bill with Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD), Senator 

Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Senator John Boozman (R-AR), Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and 

Senator Tammy Baldwin (O-Wl) joining as original cosponsors. 

Chesapeake Conservancy President and CEO Joel Dunn issued a statement in support of the bill: 

"The HELP Wildlife Act exemplifies bipartisan support for conservation and outdoor recreation 

throughout the United States and especially in the Chesapeake Bay. I am very grateful for 

Senator Cardin and Senator Capito's leadership on this bill, and I urge the Senate to move this bill 

forward so that the Chesapeake Bay Program, the Gateways program, and many other programs 

important to the Chesapeake Bay can continue to be funded." 

### 

Be the first of your friends to like this 

Explore (http://chesapeakeconservancy.org/explorel) 

Conserve (http://chesapeakeconservancy.org/conserve/) 
14 


26784.012

Conservation Innovation Center (http://chesapeakeconservancy.org/conservatiW'· 

innovation-center/) 

The Conservancy (http://chesapeakeconservancy.org/the-conservancy/) v 

Donate to the Conservancy (/donation!) 

f • an @ 

(http:/ /chesapeakeconservancy.org) 

(http://chesapeakeconservancy,org/aboutinfo@chesapeakeconservancy.olij),~j~:info@chesapeakeconservancy.org) 

716 Giddings Avenue Suite 42 Annapolis, MD 21401 

(443) 321 3610 (te1:4433213610) 

Chesapeake Conservancy (http://chesapeakeconservancy.org) 2017 
15 


26784.013

Choose Clean Water I v 

@ChooseCfeanY:!'t) 

Thank you and 

for your leadership on the Sportsman's Bill 

and for being 
16 


26784.014

Protecting Water for Western Irrigated Agriculture 

July 14,2017 

The Honorable John Barnsso, Chairman 

Environment and Public Works Committee 

United States Senate 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso: 

P.O. Box 216 Klamath Falls, OR 97601 

(541)-892-6244 www.familyfarmalliance.org 

On behalf of the Family Farm Alliance (Alliance), we are writing to express our support for your bill, S. 1514, 

the HELP for Wildlife Act. As you know, irrigated agriculture has created much of the robust habitat for 

wildlife in the Western U.S. and our members work with and consider themselves to be avid sportsmen in 

support and conservation of this important habitat. 

The Alliance is a grassroots organization of family farmers, ranchers, irrigation districts and allied industries in 

16 Western states. The Alliance is focused on one mission: To ensure the availability of reliable, affordable 

irrigation water supplies to Western farmers and ranchers. We arc also committed to the fundamental 

proposition that Western irrigated agriculture must be preserved and protected for a host of economic, 

sociological, environmental and national security reasons many of which arc often overlooked in the context 

of other national policy decisions. The Alliance believes we must continue to invest in the planning, design and 

construction of new water supply and management infrastructure in the Western U.S. to help meet the growing 

demands for water for farms, cities and the environment, and as such, protect and conserve the vital wildlife 

habitat created by our members' farms and ranches. 

We appreciate the fact that S. 1514 recognizes that nonnal tanning practices are necessary in the West in 

producing food for the Nation and the world. all the while protecting wildlife from unscrupulous practices (such 

as baiting) in the process. We also appreciate that nothing in the Act would affect State water rights; although, 

we would request the bill be strengthened to also protect a State's ability to permit new water uses in the future. 

Again, the Alliance supports S. 1514 and urges quick action on this important legislation. We believe the 

protections authorized inS. 1514 represent an important step forward in efforts to help make the West resilient 

for both farms and wildlife. 

Sincerely, 

Patrick O'Toole 

President 

Dan Keppen 

Executive Director 
17 


26784.015

July 17, 2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso: 

I am writing in support of S. 1514, The Hunting Heritage and Environmental Legacy Preservation for 

Wildlife Act ("HELP for Wildlife"). We are encouraged by the HELP Act's array of provisions designated 

to improve and strengthen our nations' natural resources and hunting heritage. At Pheasants Forever 

and Quail Forever we applaud the truly bipartisan nature of the bill and recognize your efforts to 

support the interests of our Members and supporters. 

At Pheasants Forever and Quail Forever we are especially supportive of provisions directed at fish and 

wildlife habitats including the North American Wetlands Conservation Act and the Neotropical 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act. Reauthorization of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation supports 

partnerships and programs critical to many species of fish and wildlife. We also recognize and support 

provisions to strengthen and expand public shooting ranges on our national forests and Bureau of Land 

Management lands. 

We thank you for your leadership on the important conservation and outdoor recreation bill and we 

look forward to working with you and your Senate colleagues to move a comprehensive sportsmen's act 

forward. 

Respectfully yours, 

Howard K. Vincent 

President and CEO 
18 


26784.016

July 14,2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Senators Cardin, Boozman, Klobuchar, Capito, and Baldwin, 

Thank you for introducing S. 1514, the Hunting Heritage and Environmental Legacy Preservation for 

Wildlife Act (''HELP tor Wildlife"). This is a truly bipartisan bill that includes a range of provisions 

designed to improve the management offish, wildlife, habitat, and outdoor recreation including 

hunting and fishing. On behalf of the millions of hunters, anglers, and outdoor enthusiasts from all 50 

states represented by our organizations, we express our support for the HELP Act and your bipartisan 

efforts to advance the interests of sportsmen and women. 

HELP for Wildlife would reauthorize important conservation programs including the North American 

Wetlands Conservation Act, the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act, and the National Fish 

and Wildlife Foundation. It would establish a National Fish Habitat Conservation Act to conserve fish 

and fish habitat through partnerships that enhance fish and wildlife-dependent recreation. HELP for 

Wildlife prioritizes recovery of the Chesapeake Bay by reauthorizing the Chesapeake Bay Program and 

Chesapeake Bay Initiative through 2022. The Chesapeake is our nation's largest estuary and a legendary 

fishing, boating, and waterfowl hunting location. These programs provide funds tor a regional 

partnership that coordinates the ongoing restoration of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed, and they 

support the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network. 

HELP for Wildlife would provide funding and support for the construction and expansion of public target 

ranges on national forests and Bureau of Land Management lands. Public ranges are in short supply in 

many areas and this bill would help meet the increasing demand for safe places to shoot. In addition, 

expanded recreational shooting infrastructure will help generate additional conservation revenue by 

facilitating shooting sports activities that are fundamentally linked to dedicated excise taxes on firearms, 

ammunition and archery equipment through Wildlife Restoration program. 

HELP for Wildlife makes sure normal agricultural practices are not mischaracterized as otherwise 

prohibited attempts to bait migratory game birds. It also exempts lead sport fishing equipment from 

regulation under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Finally, it affirms previously issued U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service rules to remove wolves in the Great Lakes and Wyoming from the Endangered Species 

Act, returning management of these populations to state wild lite agencies. 

We applaud your leadership on this bipartisan conservation and outdoor recreation bill. We also 

encourage your collaboration with your colleagues in the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources in order to get the best ideas from both committees and ensure the greatest likelihood one or 

more packages of sportsmen bills becoming law. 

Sincerely, 

American Sportfishing Association 

Archery Trade Association 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

B.A.S.S. 

Boone and Crockett Club 
19 


26784.017

Camp Fire Club of America 

Catch-A-Dream Foundation 

Center for Sportfishing Policy 

Coastal Conservation Association 

Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation 

Conservation Force 

Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports 

Dallas Safari Club 

Delta Waterfowl Foundation 

Ducks Unlimited 

Houston Safari Club 

Izaak Walton League of America 

Mule Deer Foundation 

Marine Retailers Association of the Americas 

National Marine Manufacturers Association 

National Professional Anglers Association 

National Shooting Sports Foundation 

National Trappers Association 

National Wild Turkey Federation 

National Wildlife Federation 

National Wildlife Refuge Association 

North American Grouse Partnership 

Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association 

Orion- The Hunter's Institute 

Pheasants Forever 

Professional Outfitters and Guides of America 

Quail Forever 

Quality Deer Management Association 

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation 

Ruffed Grouse Society 

Safari Club International 

Shikar Safari Club International 

Texas Wildlife Association 

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership 

Whitetails Unlimited 

Wild Sheep Foundation 

Wildlife Forever 

Wildlife Management Institute 
20 


26784.018

r.O. Box 86 • 408 W 23rd Street • Cheyenne, WY • 82003 

(307) 632-5409 • (307) 632-6533 (fax) www.wyo-wcca.org 

July 13,2017 

The Honorable Jobn Barrasso, MD 

Chairman 

Senate Committee on the Environment 

and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Senate Committee on the Environment 

and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper, 

As President of the Wyoming County Commissioners Association (WCCA), I am writing on 

behalf of Wyoming's 23 counties in support of the HELP for Wildlife Act. We are appreciative, 

and urge speedy passage of this legislation. The bill is critical to the continuation of state-led 

and voluntary wildlife conservation programs that help create healthy populations of large 

wildlife, and promote activities on public lands that lead to greater public involvement in wildlife 

conservation. 

Nearly half of the land area in Wyoming and nearly two-thirds of the subsurface is owned by the 

federal government. As County Commissioners, we are on the front Jines of protecting and 

advocating for the economic well-being and health of the entire county - its people, land and 

wildlife. This necessitates our active and constant involvement with federal land and wildlife 

agencies as partners and cooperating agencies. While we don't always agree, our intentional 

efforts to engage the federal agencies has led to helpful lines of communication and important 

joint efforts. No matter the Administration, we have learned that the most successful land and 

wildlife conservation programs are those that meaningfully engage local governments at the 

outset. 

That is why we support the reauthorization of the conservation programs in the HELP for 

Wildlife Act. For example, while Wyoming may not be known for its extensive wetlands, the 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NA WCA) reauthorized in Section 4 of the bill has 

provided over $40 million in grants and partner funding for critical projects in Wyoming that 

support our abundant wildlife. Projects like those funded by NAWCA are voluntary and 

collaborative rather than mandated by the federal government. In other words, they are broadly 

supported. 

In addition to explicit conservation programs, we support the sections of the bill that promote 

sport shooting and responsible fishing. These sections help ensure that future generations have 

the access, tools and abilities to hunt and fish. They represent an investment, both directly 
21 


26784.019

through Pittman-Robertson funding, and indirectly through engaged citizens who build a lifelong 

love for Wyoming's land, water and wildlife. 

Finally, we are keenly interested in passage of sections 7 and 8 oftbe bill to finalize the Fish and 

Wildlife rules for state management of gray wolves in Wyoming and the Great Lakes region. 

Given the Endangered Species Act's very low success rate overall, it is long past time that we 

celebrate its success with respect to the reintroduction and recovery of the wolf. By every 

measure the wolf has fully recovered in the Greater Yellowstone Region, a reason to both 

celebrate and protect the intended purpose of the ESA to remove recovered species from the list 

rather than continued limbo from court intervention. 

We are encouraged by the bipartisan support for the HELP for Wildlife Act, and thank you for 

your leadership in developing this legislation. We respectfully request its favorable 

consideration and quick passage in the United States Senate. 

Rob Hendry 

President 

Wyoming County Commissioners Association 
22 


26784.020

Freudenthal Law Office, LLC ~-­

Dave Freudenthal 

Wyoming Governor 2003-2011 

The Honorable John Barrasso, MD 

Chairman 

July 17, 2017 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper, 

Subject: HELP for Wildlife Act 

Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper, 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit written comments on the HELP for Wildlife Act. In 

general, this Act represents a very positive bi-partisan step forward in many areas. I am encouraged by 

the increased recognition of the role of the States and giving better definition to programs such as the 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation which have, from the outside, seemed to be "insider ball". 

I would offer specific comments in 3 areas. 

1. Target Practice Ranges on Public Lands 

This is a surprisingly important sports person and public safety issue. Whatever one's 

position on the Second Amendment, everyone would support the idea that those of us who 

possess firearms should have a properly designed and safe place to utilize them. My 

experience as Governor and in the private practice of law has convinced me that many of 

the best locations for firearm and bow practice ranges are on public lands. This is not 

surprising given the settlement patterns of public lands. Early settlers to an area sought 

ownership under various federal laws of those areas with water, favorable soil and location 

advantages. The broad, open spaces largely remained in federal ownership. These are the 

exact areas most suitable for target ranges. Such uses are consistent with the multiple use 

management concepts for public lands. Unfortunately, the current regulatory system makes 

it nearly impossible to authorize target ranges, even when properly located and constructed 

1604 Pioneer Avenue, Cheyenne, WY 82001 phone 307-996-1400 fax 307-996-1419 
23 


26784.021

in a safe and rational manner. The changes authorized by this legislation are in the best 

interest of the sporting community and the public at large. It is important to have properly 

authorized ranges because the current alternative tends to be individuals self-selecting 

public land areas to target practice or sight in their weapons. 

2. The provisions related to cementing the decisions to de-list the wolf populations are 

essential. 

It is unfortunate that the evolution of the ESA litigation and administrative actions have 

created an environment in which the ESA process never ends. The Committee is well 

aware of the tortured path of administrative action and litigation that has brought us to the 

point where legislative action is necessary. I would simply offer two comments. First, there 

is a clear preponderance of scientific evidence demonstrating the objectives of the ESA have 

been met with regard to the wolf populations in question. Second, the regulatory 

mechanisms established by the States are more than adequate to maintain the necessary 

wolf populations. Unfortunately, the administrative and legal system surrounding the ESA 

is rife with opportunities to create and litigate issues intended to extend and complicate the 

ESA process. In the absence of ESA reform, fully informed Congressional action, on a case 

by case basis, is required. 

3. The provisions protecting the use of lead tackle from the threat of nationwide restrictions 

under laws not intended for such purposes are logical and necessary. 

The sporting community has recognized, supported and accepted the requirement of nonlead ammunition in waterfowl hunting. This came about because of the solid, scientific 

information interpreted in the context of wildlife management. No such information 

supports the current discussion of regulation of lead tackle. Your proposed legislation will 

prevent the regulatory community from overrunning their headlights. Thereby doing more 

damage than good. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to submit comments. 

1604 Pioneer Avenue, Cheyenne, WY 82001 phone 307-996-1400 fax 307-996-1419 
24 


26784.022

~ 

Kay Neves 

Emblem, WY 

V!CE PRESIDENT 

Vance Broadbent 

Evanston, WY 

DIRECTORS 

J1m Dona 

Glenrock, WY 

John Marton 

Casper, WY 

Makayla Mette 

Casper, WY 

Tommy Moore 

Midwest, WY 

Regan Smith 

Powell, WY 

TREASURER 

Lisa Keeter 

Kaycee, WY 

WWGA AUXILIARY 

PRESIDENT 

MarCia Federer 

Cheyenne, WY 

Executive Director 

Amy W. Hendrickson 

amy@wyowool.com 

U.S. Senate 

WYOMING WOOl GROWERS ASSOCIATION 

811 N. Glenn Road Casper, WY 82601 

Ph. 307.265.5250 Fax: 307.234.9701 

www.wyowool.com 

July 17, 2017 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20S10-617S 

Dear Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper and Members of Committee: 

On behalf of the Wyoming Wool Growers Association (WWGA), we offer the following 

comments for inclusion into the hearing record. We wish to express our appreciation 

to Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper and members of the Committee for 

the opportunity to offer the views of the Wyoming Wool Growers Association 

regarding S. 1514, Hunting Heritage and Environmental Legacy Preservation (HELP) for 

Wildlife Act. Our comments are specific Section 8, Reissuance of Final Rule Regarding 

Gray Wolves In Wyoming. 

The Wyoming Wool Growers Association is one ofthe oldest livestock producers 

association in Wyoming and the only one solely representing the sheep industry in the 

state. Since 1905, the Wyoming Wool Growers Association has represented 

Wyoming's sheep and wool producers. We serve to protect and preserve the interests 

of sheep and livestock producers throughout the state and continue to advocate for 

the businesses, communities, and families that constitute the agricultural industry in 

Wyoming. 

Sheep are an important part of Wyoming's agriculture sector. Wyoming is fourth in 

the country for sheep production behind Texas, California1 and Colorado and number 

three in wool production1 behind California and Texas. Wyoming wool is the finest in 

the country as reflected by the value paid for it. In 2016, Wyoming's wool producers 

received the highest prices paid for wool in the country. 

The Wyoming Wool Growers Association supports S. 1514, HELP for Wildlife Act and 

we encourage the Committee to support this bill. We are especially supportive of the 

provisions in Section 8 that reaffirm the March 2017 D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals 

decision returning management of wolves in Wyoming back to the State. Ensuring 

that the 2011 rule be re~instated and protecting it from further judicial review will 

provide certainty to Wyoming's wildlife managers and to our sheep and livestock 

producers who must raise their livestock under threat of wolf depredation every day. 

Wyoming's wildlife managers and livestock producers understand the balance that is 

needed to maintain a healthy wolf population in the state and a vibrant animal 

agriculture industry. We strongly support the bill's reaffirmation of the gray wolf 

delisting rule and its provision to remove the threat of continued legal action. The 

811 N, GtENN ROAD e CASPER, WVOMING 82601 e PHONE (307) 265·5250 e FAX (307) 23-'l-9701 

WWW WYOWOOL COM • wyowool@wyowoc! arg 
25 


26784.023

constant stream of lawsuits, the length of time between when a suit is filed and a decision 

made, and the ever~lasting appeals process all serve to create an uncertain environment for 

everyone, including wildlife managers and livestock producers. Having certainty allows for good 

decisions to be made and plans to be adjusted as needed to ensure sustainable wolf 

populations. It also allows our sheep producers the opportunity to properly manage their flocks 

in balance with the gray wolf. 

Between 2012 and 2014, Wyoming carried out a successful wolf management program that 

ensured a sustainable population of wolves and allowed sheep and livestock producers the 

ability to protect their animals. The state has a positive track record of wolf management that 

shows stable populations above the numbers agreed to between Wyoming and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Services (FWS). When the wolf was delisted, Wyoming agreed to maintain a population 

of 100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs. Two years later, in 2014, the state Game and Fish 

Department announced that Wyoming was home to 306 wolves including 23 breeding pairs, far 

exceeding the minimum population agreed to between FWS and the State. 

Our sheep and livestock industries would also benefit from the certainty provided through this 

legislation. Depredation is a primary cause of sheep loss that costs our producers thousands of 

dollars each year and wolf depredation plays as significant role in our sheep losses. During the 

past two years, as the wolf population in Wyoming has continued to grow the impact on our 

sheep populations has also grown. This is evidenced by the number of wolves taken as a result 

of depredation, which doubled over the past two years (54 in 2015 and 115 in 2016). Keep in 

mind, that in the past two years, only federal personnel have been allowed to address wolf 

depredation. In order to protect sheep from wolf damage, a producer had to have his death 

losses confirmed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service as being caused by wolves before USDA 

Wildlife Services could take action against the wolves responsible. During this confirmation 

process, the wolf or wolves would continue their killing, leaving producers helpless to protect 

their animals. 

The Wyoming Wool Growers Association membership believes that wildlife management should 

reside with the state and that this bill confirms that policy with regard to the gray wolf. We 

believe the State is best equipped to know and truly understand the needs of its wildlife and 

how to best balance those needs with the communities that must live and work alongside that 

wildlife. 

We greatly appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on this important legislation. We urge the 

Committee to pass this bill out with a favorable recommendation for passage by the Senate. If 

additional information is needed, please don't hesitate to contact Amy Hendrickson at the 

Wyoming Wool Growers office. She may be reached by email at amy@wyowool.com or by 

phone at 307-265-5250. 

Sincerely, 

···KcL~;{l~<,. 

Kay Neves 

President 

kn/awh 
26 


26784.024

Testimony for the Record of 

Lawrence G. Keane 

Senior Vice President for Government and Public Affairs 

and General Counsel 

National Shooting Sports Foundation 

Before the 

Committee on Environment & Public Works 

United States Senate 

Regarding 

S. 1514, the Hunting Heritage and Environmental Legacy Preservation for 

Wildlife Act 

July 19,2017 
27 


26784.025

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

The National Shooting Sports Foundation appreciates the opportunity to submit 

testimony for the record in support of S.1514, the Hunting Heritage and 

Environmental Legacy Preservation for Wildlife Act (HELP Act). This bipartisan 

legislation includes a number of provisions that will enhance wildlife habitat and 

expand access and opportunities for hunting, fishing and recreational shooting. 

NSSF strongly urges members of the committee to engage in the bipartisan and 

bicameral collaboration necessary to enact this legislation during the I 15th 

Congress. 

The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the trade association for the firearms, 

ammunition, hunting and shooting sports industry. Our mission is to promote, 

protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a 

membership of more than 12,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, 

shooting ranges, sportsmen's organizations and endemic media organizations. 

The HELP Act includes a provision modeled after S.593, sponsored by Senator 

Capito, along with lead cosponsors Senators Bennet, Boozman, and Heitkamp, that 

would remove a number of barriers that are currently preventing state wildlife 

agencies from utilizing Pittman-Robertson excise tax funds to develop much needed 

shooting range infrastructure. In recent years, demand for safe places for 

recreational shooters, hunters, law enforcement and others to shoot has increased. 

Unfortunately, the additional range infrastructure needed to meet the increased 

demand has not been developed. Adding additional range infrastructure to meet the 

growing demand would recruit and retain new hunters and recreational shooters 

while also significantly increasing the conservation revenues generated by excise 

taxes on firearms and ammunition that are utilized to pay for wildlife conservation 

and management, law enforcement and hunter education. 

Hunters, recreational shooters and firearms, archery, and ammunition 

manufacturers are the largest financial supporters of wildlife conservation 

throughout the United States having contributed over $12 billion to habitat 

conservation, recreational shooting and wildlife management through PittmanRobertson excise tax payments since the program's inception. A significant portion 

of this amount is directly attributable to recreational shooters who, per-capita, 

spend even more than hunters on firearms and ammunition and archery equipment 

subject to these important excise taxes. For example, NSSF conservatively 

estimates over 75% of all ammunition manufactured is used for target shooting. 

2 
28 


26784.026

Despite the unqualified success of this historic "user-pays" system, PittmanRobertson funds have not always been administered in a manner that encourages 

the creation of recreational shooting opportunities, even though these shooters who 

may never go afield are helping to fund conservation. Section 2 of the HELP Act 

would help address this loss of access and opportunity by reducing existing local 

and state Pittman-Robertson matching requirements for shooting ranges from 25% 

to l 0%. Pittman-Robertson funds are allocated to states on a formula basis. 

Therefore, while this change would provide additional flexibility and capability to 

states, the reimbursement rate would not result in increased federal spending. 

Section 2 would also amend an existing requirement that Pittman-Robertson 

funding used for shooting ranges be obligated within two years by allowing the 

funds to accrue over five years. This extension would allow individual projects to 

be funded over multiple budget cycles and significantly enhance the ability of 

states to build and maintain shooting ranges. 

Additionally, NSSF strongly supports Section 7 of the HELP Act which affirms 

previously issued U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rules to remove wolves in the 

Great Lakes and Wyoming from the Endangered Species Act (ESA), returning 

management of these populations to state wildlife agencies. The federal 

government's decision to remove the gray wolf from the list of threatened and 

endangered species was the scientific based threshold indicating the time to resume 

state management. Following through on the resumption of state authority is the 

only way to manage wolf population in concert with other species under state 

management and consider questions of future wolf management under the widest 

set of options. 

After being listed for decades on the ESA, populations of gray wolves have 

recovered beyond expectations. Effects on wildlife populations, such as changes to 

big game species behavior and declining fawn and calf recruitment, along with 

continuing risks to farmers, ranchers and sportsmen, can be addressed only if the 

United States Congress again supports the Fish and Wildlife Service in returning 

management authority of gray wolves to the states. 

Remaining attempts to extend federal authority are clearly designed to revise the 

recovery goals. Advocates seeking to do this through the courts are undermining 

the credibility of the ESA. They have the option to use the ESA legitimately by 

petitioning the Fish and Wildlife Service for a new listing if they can make the case 

that the wolf still requires the protections ofthe ESA. 

3 
29 


26784.027

State agencies are fully qualified and best positioned to responsibly manage wolf 

populations in accordance with the North American Model of Wildlife 

Conservation. All should recall that the wolf has never been managed under the 

North American Model and doing so now will be a milestone in the evolution of 

scientific management. 

The success of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation relies upon 

sportsmen's ability to participate in the regulated and ethical harvest of game 

species. To that end, states must have the ability to utilize hunting and trapping as a 

wildlife management tool for wolves as they successfully do for other species. 

Congress has enacted this language before for Idaho and Montana and should do so 

again in order to strike the proper balance between sustaining wolf populations and 

protecting the other wildlife and livestock that are vital to the economic wellbeing 

of communities throughout the wolves' range. 

We applaud your leadership on this bipartisan conservation and outdoor recreation 

bill. We also encourage your collaboration with your colleagues on the U.S. Senate 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in order to get the best ideas from 

both committees and ensure the greatest likelihood that one or more packages of 

sportsmen bills become law. 

Sincerely, 

Lawrence G. Keane 

Senior Vice President for Government 

and Public Affairs and General Counsel 

National Shooting Sports Foundation 

4 
30 


26784.028

July 14,2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Conserve. Hunt. Share. 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

United States Senate 

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

On behalf of the 230,000 members and volunteers of the National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF), I write to 

express strong support for S. 1514, the Hunting Heritage and Environmental Legacy Preservation (HELP) for 

Wildlife Act and urge its expeditious consideration. We stand ready to assist you in your efforts. 

Founded in 1973, the NWTF is a national non-profit wildlife conservation organization dedicated to the 

conservation of the wild turkey and preservation of our hunting heritage. With the successful restoration of the 

wild turkey complete, the NWTF has focused its efforts on our "Save the Habitat. Save the Hunt." initiative, 

which connects both parts of our mission by recognizing the importance of quality habitat for wildlife 

conservation and its significance to our hunting tradition. Through this initiative, our goal is to conserve or 

enhance 4 million acres of wildlife habitat for turkeys and other wildlife, provide access to 500,000 additional 

acres for hunters and other wildlife enthusiasts, and grow the hunting population by 1.5 million individuals. The 

NWTF doesn'tjust advocate for conservation, we deliver conservation on the ground through our work with 

federal land management agencies, state fish and wildlife agencies, and other partners. The HELP for Wildlife 

Act is particularly important because it will result in the delivery offish and wildlife conservation on the ground. 

The success of our partners through adequate funding is essential to the NWTF reaching our goals. 

We support the reauthorization of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NA WCA), which utilizes 

voluntary, non-regulatory partnerships to conserve wetlands and their associated upland habitats for waterfowl, 

shorebirds. and other wildlife. These habitats provide many benefits due to flood remediation and wetlands 

purification in improving water quality. Federal dollars are matched l :2 with state, landowner, business, and 

conservation NGO partners through competitive grants approved by a Technical Committee, the Council, and 

the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Since its inception, more than 2,600 NA WCA projects have 

conserved 33.4 million acres of wetlands habitat in North America. 

Modeled conceptually on NA WCA, the National Fish Habitat Conservation Partnerships (NFHCP), reauthorized 

by the HELP for Wildlife Act, have established 599 partnerships in 20 regions covering the nation since 2006, 

conserving millions of miles of' riparian and coastal ecosystems. Since 2006,$63 million of federal funding has 

been matched by over $102 million from state and local governments, private landowners, agricultural 

businesses, and conservation NGOs to put conservation on the ground through voluntary, non-regulatory 

partnerships. Conservation of riparian and coastal watersheds benefits anglers, wildlife enthusiasts, and the 

citizens of our nation by providing high quality wildlife habitat, and ensuring the quality of our waters. 

National Wild Turkey Federation 

PO Rnll 530 • • Fr1tyf;0IO, Srni!P Cnroir~a /9fQ:l • rronP (8fl.ll o:v ·31116 • Fnx· (RCrl) t<37-9180 

www.nwtf.org 
31 


26784.029

The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) is an important component to leveraging additional 

conservation funding. For example, the NWTF has been able to restore more than 20,000 acres of longleaf pine 

habitat across the Southeast in partnership with the NFWF. The NWTF supports the NFWF's reauthorization. 

The NWTF is a strong supporter of the authority of the state fish and wildlife agencies to manage fish and 

wildlife within their borders, including on federal lands. We therefore strongly support the two provisions in the 

HELP for Wildlife Act regarding wolf conservation, and protecting state authority to manage de listed 

populations. In both the Great Lakes states and in Wyoming, according to the USFWS, gray wolves have been 

biologically recovered and warrant de listing from the Endangered Species Act. Unfottunately, environmental 

activist groups have misused the process provisions of the Endangered Species Act to thwart delisting actions by 

the USFWS. Protection from egregious judicial review is long overdue- we should embrace the successes of 

de listing recovered species, not continue to allow it to be thwarted. 

Finally, the NWTF strongly supports the provision that incentivizes the state fish and wildlife agencies to use 

Pittman-Robertson funding to develop, construct, and maintain shooting ranges on public lands. Recreational 

shooters contribute significantly to the Pittman-Robertson Fund through federal excise tax dollars paid on 

firearms, ammunition, and bows and arrows. Additional opportunities for recreational shooting will help recruit 

and retain hunters and recreational shooters, thus preserving this nation's great tradition of hunting- a high 

priority of the NWTF. Additionally, this will ensure the long-term viability of the rittman-Robertson Fund, 

which along with state hunting license sales, is the principle source of funds for the wildlife conservation 

programs delivered by the state fish and wildlife agencies. These programs benefit not only hunters and 

recreational shooters but all citizens of the respective states. 

The NWTF strongly supports the expeditious consideration and enactment of the HELP for Wildlife Act. This 

legislation will enhance the delivery of fish and wildlife habitat conservation on the ground, provide recreational 

opportunities for hunters, recreational shooters, and anglers, and improve the quality of life for all of our 

citizens. The NWTF sincerely appreciates your leadership on this bipartisan conservation and outdoor recreation 

bill and stands ready to assist you in its ultimate enactment. 

Sincerely, 

Rebecca A. Humphries 

Chief Executive Officer 
32 


26784.030

Testimony by Scott Gudes, Vice President American 

Sportfishing Association 

Before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public 

Works 

Regarding the Hunting Heritage and Environmental Legacy Preservation Act. 

July 19, 2017 

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper and Members of the Committee, thank you up for the 

opportunity to testify regarding S. 1514, the Hunting Heritage and Environmental Legacy 

Preservation Act, or HELP for Wildlife Act. As a representative of approximately 800 companies 

manufacturing and conducting commerce in the production, sale and use of sportfishing 

equipment, I want to thank and express appreciation for the Committee's support of anglers, 

hunters, shooters and the overall outdoor recreational economy. 

This bill authorizes a number of programs and policies that are important to the recreational fishing 

community and industry. In fact, the Committee might consider adding "Fishing" to the title, as this 

bill really is the Hunting and Fishing Heritage and Environmental Legacy Preservation Act. Of 

course, I do realize that would change the "HELP" abbreviation for the Act. Possibly the bill could 

be referred to in section 1 as the "HELP for Wildlife and Fisheries Act." 

The outdoor industry recreational economy is often overlooked as an engine for jobs and economic 

growth. Recreational fishing in the U.S. generates 828,000 jobs and $115 billion in annual economic 

activity. Recreational fishing is about families and young people spending time outdoors, getting on 

or near the water, gaining an appreciation for nature, and enjoying outdoor recreation. The 

Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation notes that fishing is the second most popular outdoor 

recreation activity in the United States with 46 million Americans participate in recreational fishing 

each year. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) estimates that 11 million 

of these anglers fish in saltwater. The five year survey conducted by the Interior Department and 
33 


26784.031

Census Bureau, which is funded by angler and boater excise taxes is currently being updated. We 

believe the new survey results out later this year will show that even more Americans are fishing 

and the jobs and economic benefits I mentioned are even greater. 

The Hunting Heritage and Environmental Legacy Preservation for Wildlife Act contains a number of 

provisions that will improve and conserve fishing access and fishery resources. Our community 

works closely with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and we are pleased the bill 

reauthorizes the Foundation and recognizes the Foundation's important work in fresh- and 

saltwater fisheries. The Bill reauthorizes the Chesapeake Bay Program and the Chesapeake Bay 

Initiative Act of 1998. The Chesapeake Bay's importance cannot be overstated. It is our nation's 

largest estuary. With its tidal rivers like the Choptank and numerous wetlands, the Bay serves as 

the nursery for 70 to 90 percent of all Atlantic striped bass, and it is home to many other 

sportfishing stocks, and forage fish. Millions of anglers fish the waters of the Chesapeake Bay in 

Maryland and Virginia each year, from Have de Grace to the Virginia Capes. It is important to the 

sportfishing industry and anglers in Maryland and Virginia, and up and down entire the Atlantic 

Coast that the bay water quality be restored and that this great estuary be well managed for future 

generations. The American Sportfishing Association strongly supports the Committee's efforts. 

Section 9 of the bill authorizes general provision language that has been carried in annual Interior 

and Environment Appropriations bills which prohibits the regulation of lead fishing tackle by the 

Environmental Protection Agency. This provision keeps the regulation of lead fishing tackle with 

State Fish and Wildlife Agencies where it belongs. It also provides the same treatment for fishing 

tackle that Congress has already enacted for lead ammunition. Similar legislative language for 

fishing tackle has been included in the "Sportsmen Acts" that have come close to final passage the 

past few sessions of Congress. 

Lead fishing tackle is used by almost all anglers when they are targeting fish below the immediate 

surface. Thus, sinkers, jigs and other such tackle are often used to weight a lure or bait. The metal 

is the preferred manufacturing material because of its density (thus size), malleability and low cost. 
34 


26784.032

It is employed in almost all types of fishing, from trolling tackle on the Chesapeake Bay to plastic 

worm rigs for largemouth bass. Every angler intends to retrieve and reuse this type of what is 

called "terminal tackle." If a fishing line unintentionally breaks, for example due to submerged 

structure, then the weight remains intact and does not mix with the water. 

The use of lead fishing tackle is not a human health issue. The concern that has been raised is the 

interaction with individual birds with very small lead tackle, what is often referred to as "split shot." 

Numerous times over the last few decades, and most recently in 2010 and 2012, the EPA was 

petitioned to ban lead in all fishing tackle nationwide. In those cases the impact on loon waterfowl 

was cited by the petitioners. EPA ended up, after review, dismissing the petitions stating that "the 

petitioners have not demonstrated that the required rule is necessary." Biological facts, and 

economic impacts did not support the proposed action. 

The American Sportfishing Association believes that the regulation of sportfishing tackle and 

methods of fishing are issues that are appropriately within the jurisdiction of State fish and wildlife 

agencies. We also believe Congress should accord anglers the same treatment it legislated for 

hunters, sport shooters, and ammunition and we appreciate the Committee's action in section 9. 

Finally, Section 12 of the bill authorizes the National Fish Habitat Partnership or "NFHP." This 

program was modeled on one of the most successful, conservation endeavors in our nation's 

history, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act. The HELP for Wildlife Act would codify the 

National Fish Habitat Partnership- a program established through a state-led public-private 

partnership and housed within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

The HELP for Wildlife Act supports this voluntary, non-regulatory, "from the ground-up" fish habitat 

conservation program. The program has been and will continue to be driven by local and 

regionally-based Fish Habitat Partnerships. The partnerships are comprised of representatives of 

federal, state, and local agencies, conservation and sportsmen's organizations, private landowners 
35 


26784.033

and the business sector. The program is about achieving outputs, high impact habitat 

improvements, at the lowest cost practicable. Fish habitat partnerships have already led to almost 

600 successful conservation projects in 50 states benefitting anglers and communities throughout 

the nation. 

The fish habitat provisions in section 12 clearly protect private property rights, require the approval 

of projects by the state government, and provide for diverse representation on the National Fish 

Habitat Board that is charged with project selection. We believe that this legislation will create 

better fisheries habitat, more fish and quality fisheries and angler access. It will increase 

participation and enjoyment by Americans of our rivers, lakes and streams and improve fish habitat 

throughout the country. The committee's bill is clearly an investment in the future. The American 

Sportfishing Association strongly supports the Committee's fisheries habitat conservation and 

partnerships legislation. 

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper and members of the Senate Committee on 

Environment and Public Works, the HELP for Wildlife Act truly is a HELP for Wildlife and Fisheries 

Act. Moreover, this legislation represents an appreciation for the value of outdoor recreation and 

sportsmen. On behalf of the American Sportfishing Association and the men and women working 

in our industry and anglers 11Wetting a line" around the country, I'd like to express my appreciation 

for the Committee's action. We strongly support this bill. 
36 


26784.034

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

July 14,2017 

Written Testimony of 

Shaun Sims, President Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts 

S. 1514 Hunting Heritage and Environmental Legacy Preservation for Wildlife Act" or the '·HELP for 

Wildlife Act" (S.I514) 

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and Committee Members, on behalf of the Wyoming 

Association of Conservation Districts, thank you for advancing legislation that includes provisions to 

congressionally confirm the delisting of the Gray Wolf in Wyoming and prevent further litigation. 

As you are aware the U.S. Fish & Wildlife's decision to delist was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia (No. 14-5300) and the rule to delis! was republished on May I, 2017 (82 Fed. 

Reg. 20284) to reinstate the removal of Federal protections for the Gray Wolf in Wyoming under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The Association supports the provisions specifically 

preventing this decision from further judicial review. 

The local Districts are charged statutorily with natural resource conservation, including water, soil, and 

range and wildlife habitat. Further, the districts have statutory responsibility to work with the private land 

owners to conserve their natural resources and provide for economic stability and sustainability. 11-16-

10 I et. seq., 

The Association has been a member of the Wyoming Wolf Coalition in supporting and defending the 

delisting of the Wolf and transfer of management to the state. As recently stated by the US Fish & 

Wildlife Service: 

"Meanwhile. the state's annual wolf numbers reveal an enduring healthy population, with 

approximately 377 wolves in 52 packs with 25 breeding pairs. The Northern Rocky Mountain 

population as a whole continues to he self-sustaining, with numbers well above federal 

management objectives. " 1 

The state is capable of managing the Wolf pursuant to Wyoming's Wolf Management Plan. Spending 

significant resources to defend against repeated legal challenges detracts from other high priority wildlife 

habitat enhancement and conservation projects. Further, it serves to jeopardize other natural resource and 

wildlife resources important to our communities and the private land owners. 

As articulated by the Wolf Coalition in its defense and support of the State of Wyoming: 

"Wyoming must balance its mandate to protect and preserve a recovered 1vo/f population, with 

its duty to protect and preserve the prey upon which the wolves feed Wyoming must consider the 

impact that wolves have on private property, particularly livestock Wyoming must consider the 

impact that wolves have on other wildlife, particularly elk and moose populations. Wyoming must 

consider the economic well-being of all industry groups and local governments. After balancing 

1 https://www.fws.gov/home/wolfrecovery/ 

Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts; Senate EPW Committee; Written Testimony S. 1514 
37 


26784.035

these various interests, Wyoming developed and adopted a Management Plan that was froperly 

tailored and based on sound science. The USFWS recognizes the soundness of that Plan' 

Given the WACO's responsibility to provide for a balanced approach to both conservation objectives as 

well as stability in the industry, we believe it is imperative that the management of Wolves remain in the 

state's jurisdiction. 

The private landowners in Wyoming provide significant habitat for wildlife resources. For example. the 

statewide distribution of habitat is 55%, 40%, and 58% of pronghorn, elk, and mule deer winter range, 

respectively, is in private ownership. The statewide distribution of privately-owned Greater Sage-grouse 

core habitat is approximately 35%. This habitat is provided by predominately working ranches. These 

same private landowners are experiencing significant losses from wolves, hence continuing to put 

pressure on their ability to maintain economically viable operations. 

The Association is deeply concerned that without a balanced approach to species conservation and 

protection, which recognizes and includes a recognition of the contribution private working ranching 

landscapes provide for multiple species and ecosystem services, the resulting consequence will ultimately 

be a loss of habitat as these ranges are sold and subdivided. 

We appreciate the recognition provided in S.l514 that the Wolf has been recovered and that adequate 

protections are in place to ensure future viability, and that litigation on this matter is frivolous, 

unnecessary and waste taxpayer's dollars at the federal, state and local levels. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony for the record. 

2 Wyoming Wolf Coalition- 2013 Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Appellant State of Wyoming; No.l4-5300 

Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts; Senate EPW Committee; Written Testimony S. 1514 
38 


26784.036

Written Testimony submitted to the 

Committee on Environment & Public Works 

United States Senate 

s. 1514 

Hunting Heritage and Environmental Legacy Preservation (HELP) for 

Wildlife Act 

July 13, 2017 

Offered by 

James Holte, President 

On Behalf of the 

Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation 

On behalf of the Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation we offer these comments into the official 

record regarding S. 1514, the Hunting Heritage and Environmental Legacy Preservation 

(HELP) for Wildlife Act. We would like to thank Chairman Barrasso and co-authors Mr. Cardin, 

Mr. Boozman, Ms. Klobuchar, Mrs. Capito and Ms. Baldwin for the opportunity to offer the 

views of the Wisconsin Farm Bureau regarding this legislation. 

Under the umbrella of the Endangered Species Act, the gray wolfs federal status has 

undergone extensive changes during the last 15 years. This is not due to the biological 

or scientific evidence that population numbers for the species have met and exceeded 

their recovery goals, but flaws in the Act that make these decisions prone to politics and 

legal battles based on procedural technicalities. While the recovery status of the gray wolf 

in the Western Great Lakes region continues to be fought in courtrooms and determined 

by Federal Judges in Washington, D.C., Wisconsin farmers have their hands tied when it 

comes to defending their livestock and livelihoods. It is illegal for farmers in the Western 

Great Lakes region to protect their livestock from depredating wolves and there is no 

mechanism to manage the population. 
39 


26784.037

Section 7 of the HELP Wildlife Act provides relief for farmers to protect their livelihoods 

and livestock. States will be granted the ability to manage their wolf populations with 

approval and oversight from the United States Fish and Wildlife Services. This decision 

also provides certainty for farmers as this reissuance of the final rule regarding gray 

wolves in the Western Great Lakes will not be subject to judicial review. We fully support 

this change. 

Implementation of Wisconsin's first gray wolf hunting and trapping season in 2012 

demonstrated that the state's Department of Natural Resources (DNR) management plan 

was conservative, science-based and designed to maintain the prescribed wolf population 

while managing it to minimize conflicts with Wisconsin farmers and others. 

We appreciate the efforts by the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public 

Works as well as the authoring Senators of the HELP Wildlife Act to address the needed 

reforms to the Endangered Species Act and the serious nature of the gray wolf situation 

in Wisconsin. There is a legitimate need for states to have more control of wildlife 

management while still maintaining some level of federal oversight. 
40 


26784.038

President~ Dennis Sun, Casper First Vice President~ Scott Sims, McFadden 

Region I Vice President· JD Hill, Ranchester Region II Vice President~ Steve Paisley, Wheatland 

Region III Vice President· Manth,1 Philips, Casper Region IV Vice President· Bill Resor, Jackson 

Region V Vice President· Reg Philips, Dubois Executive Vice President- Jim Magagna, Cheymne 

Young Producers Assembly- Kendall Roberts, Cheyen11e 

July 12, 2017 

TO: Senator John Barrasso, Chairman 

Senator Thomas Carper, Ranking Member 

Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works 

FROM: Jim Magagna, Executive Vice President, Wyoming Stock Growers Association 

RE: "HELP for Wildlife Act" 

TESTIMONY 

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper and Members of the EPW Committee. 

The Wyoming Stock Growers Association (WSGA) appreciates this opportunity to provide 

testimony on the HELP for Wildlife Act (S.1514). WSGA is generally supportive of all sections of 

the bill. However, we will focus our testimony on Section 8, REISSUANCE OF FINAL RULE 

REGARDING GRAY WOLVES IN WYOMING. WSGA strongly supports Section 8. Our comments 

are intended to focus on the strong need for this legislation. 

WSGA, with a current membership of over 1100, has represented the livestock industry in the 

state since 1872. We have been actively engaged in discussions and decisions regarding wolf 

management in Wyoming and surrounding states since wolves were introduced into Wyoming 

in 1995. On a personal note, I have been involved with this issue since being named by Interior 

Secretary Lujan in 1990 to serve on a FACA Committee to develop a plan for the introduction of 

Canadian wolves into Yellowstone National Park. 

While WSGA strongly opposed the introduction of wolves into the state, since this introduction 

became a reality, we have maintained a focus on assuring establishment of a population that 

would provide for the return of management to the state under a plan that would maintain a 

viable population in suitable areas while assuring the ability to address and minimize impacts 

on Wyoming livestock and wildlife. 

WSGA was very involved in the development of Wyoming's initial wolf legislation in 2003. We 

participated with Wyoming wildlife managers, representatives of USFWS (the Service} and 

other interested parties in the development of Wyoming's Wolf Management Plan. The Plan 

provided for maintaining a viable wolf population in the suitable habitats of northwestern 

Wyoming while protecting the status of the wolf as a predator subject to unlimited control in 

the remainder of the state. We have accepted reasonable changes to both the legislation and 

"Shaping and Living The Code of The West" 

P.O. BOX 206, CHEYENNE, WY 82003• PH: 307.638.3942 • FX: 307.634.1210 

EMAIL: !NFO(dlWYSGA.ORG •WEBSITE: WWW.INYSGA.ORG • BLOG: WWW.REALRANCHERS.COM 
41 


26784.039

Magagna Testimony 

Page 2 

the Plan to accommodate the ever-changing targets outlined by the Service over a period of 

years. 

WSGA has defended this plan for nearly 15 years, both in comments to the Service and, when 

necessary, through participation in litigation to defend the plan. The process of securing 

delisting of a fully recovered grey wolf species in Wyoming has been a "merry-go-round" that is 

worthy of full understanding. 

In December of 2007 the Service approved the Wyoming Wolf management Plan. The 

following February they issued a final rule delisting the Northern Rocky Mountain wolf 

population, including the population in Wyoming. When the Federal District Court in Montana 

issues a preliminary injunction against the delisting based on the Service's acceptance of 

Wyoming's dual classification system, rather than defend its decision, the Service chose to 

revoke its previous approval of the Wyoming Plan. The result was a reversal of the delisting of 

the wolf in Wyoming. 

In 2010, following some revisions to the Wyoming Plan and the Service's continued refusal to 

sanction the Plan, the State of Wyoming filed a petition in Federal District Court in Wyoming 

seeking an order directing the Service to begin the delisting process in Wyoming. The Wyoming 

Wolf Coalition, in which the WSGA was a major participant, filed a motion to intervene on 

behalf of the State. That motion was granted. 

The District Court found the decision of the Service to be arbitrary & capricious and set it aside. 

Two comments of the Judge are worth noting here: "The Court offers the following 

observations. Given the past history of the wolf project, both the state of Wyoming and the 

FWS have been facing conflicting rulings and determinations, based on substantially the same 

scientific and commercial data-a Catch-22 for all ... In this case, the Court finds that the agency 

has not provided a reasoned explanation for its varying actions during the course of this long 

term wolf reintroduction project." Following this decision, the Service again proceeded with the 

delisting of the wolf in Wyoming. 

In 2012, the Wyoming wolf delisting was again challenged. This time the environmental 

plaintiffs filed two lawsuits in DC Federal District Court and a third in the Colorado District 

Court, challenging the biological determination that the wolf population in the Northern 

Rockies was recovered and questioning the state's commitment to maintaining a recovered 

population. These cases were consolidated in the DC Court. WSGA filed an amicus brief in the 

case as a member of the Wolf Coalition. In September, 2013, the District Court granted, in part, 

the plaintiffs' motion based on nothing more than the Court's view that the State's 

commitment to manage for a specific numerical buffer was not included in legislation and, 

therefore, was an inadequate regulatory mechanism. 

"Shaping and Living TI1e Code of The West" 

P.O. Box 206, CHEYENNE, WY 82001 • PH: 307.638.3942 • Fx: 307.634.1210 

EMAIL: JNFO@WYSGA.ORG •WEBSITE: WWW.WYSGA.ORG • BLOG: WWW.REALRANCHERS.COM 
42 


26784.040

Magagna Testimony 

Page 3 

It was not until15 months later that the Service filed an appeal of this decision. The Service 

then defended the adequacy of the State's management plan along with Wyoming's statutes 

and regulations. In March of 2017 the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit issued a decision 

reversing the judgment of the District Court. In doing so the Court of Appeals accepted the 

argument of the Service that Wyoming's predator area was never "envisioned to meaningfully 

contribute to wolf recovery in the region" and is this not "a significant part of its range. 

In the latest chapter of this 15 year saga, the gray wolf was again de listed in Wyoming on April 

2S'h, 2017. 

Our intent in relating this complex history is to demonstrate that state management of a viable 

wolf population in Wyoming has been subject to incessant litigation and resulting unpredictable 

actions by the Service. Meanwhile, our neighboring states of Montana and Idaho representing 

portions of the same distinct population segment (DPS) have enjoyed six years of protection 

from similar judicial challenges as a result of action taken by Congress and signed by the 

President. According to the findings of the Service, Wyoming has fully met the established 

criteria for a recovered wolf population as have our two neighboring states. As a matter of 

equity, we are entitled to the same level of Congressional protection from judicial challenge. 

The ranching community in Wyoming, both as the primary private landowners and as the most 

extensive users of state and federally managed lands, is a critical partner in the protection of 

diverse species. Our willingness to engage with state and federal wildlife managers is tempered 

by the threat of litigation each time that a wildlife management decision is threatened by 

litigation, often by organizations whose primary goal is land use control, not the welfare of the 

species. These judicial challenges to delisting decisions only serve to defeat and delay the 

intended outcome of the Endangered Species Act. 

When predator species such as gray wolves and grizzly bears cannot be properly managed by 

qualified state wildlife managers, our members suffer significant economic impacts. AS but one 

example, a large in-common grazing allotment on the Bridger-Teton National Forest in western 

Wyoming has seen its overall cattle losses during the summer season increase from a historic 

average of approximately 3% to annual averages ranging from 7% to 10% since the 

reintroduction of wolves and the expansion of grizzly bears into their allotment. 

In recent years WSGA has been drawn into litigation challenging Service decisions on wolves, 

grizzly bears, sage grouse and Prebles Meadow Jumping Mice, to name a few. Until Congress 

can identify an approach to discourage such litigation while fostering local collaborative species 

management, targeted Congressional action to preclude judicial review will continue to be 

essential. 

"Shaping and Living TI1c Code of The West" 

P.O. Box 206, CHEYENNE, WY 82001• PH: 307.638.3942 • Fx: 307.634.1210 

EMAIL: INFO@WYSGA.ORG •WEBSITE: WWW.WYSGA.ORG • BLDG: WWW.REALRANCHERS.COM 
43 


26784.041

Magagna Testimony 

Page4 

WSGA reiterates our strong support of Section 8 and urges swift Congressional action to pass 

the HELP for Wildlife Act. We appreciate this opportunity to share our experiences with you. 

### 

"Shaping and Living 17u Code of The West" 

P.O. BoX 206, CHEYENNE, WY 82001• PH: 307.638.3942 • Fx: 307.634.1210 

EMAIL: INFO@WYSGA.ORG •WEBSITE: WWW.WYSGA.ORG • BLOC: WWW.REALRANCHERS.COM 
44 


26784.042

RE: S. 1514 

TESTIMONY 

Presented to the 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

U.S. Senate 

by 

Ken Hamilton E.V.P. 

The Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation 

13 July, 2017 

The Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation would like to provide comments on S. 1514, and more 

specifically Section 7 of the proposed legislation which deals with reissuance of the final rule regarding 

gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes Region; and Section 8 which deals with reissuance of the tlnal 

rule regarding gray wolves in Wyoming. 

The Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation represents over 2,600 fanners and ranchers within the state of 

Wyoming as well as approximately 11.000 non-agricultural members who have an interest in a strong 

agricultural sector. Our members produce a number of commodities in the state of Wyoming but a 

majority of them are engaged in livestock production, predominately cattle and sheep. 

Canadian wolves were brought into Wyoming under the experimental non-essential designation 

allowed under section I 0 Q) of the Endangered Species Act, since that time our members have 

experienced direct livestock losses by wolves. But the losses aren't just limited to direct losses. 

Studies have shown that livestock in areas with wolves don't do as well as livestock in areas without 

wolves. These losses range all the way from not gaining the appropriate weight to not breeding back 

for the next breeding cycle. This has resulted in a significant economic loss to those ranchers. 

The emotional toll on livestock producers can be significant when they come upon animals injured by 

wolves which must be put down to end their suffering. We have a number of stories from our ranchers 

about having to put down cattle and calves injured by wolves. One member had over I 00 injured sheep 

when wolves stampeded his sheep down through the timber. These sheep had broken bones; many had 

impaled themselves on broken branches or torn their abdominal cavities open. Most had to be 

euthanized by the rancher and the herder. 

Wyoming Farm Bureau participated heavily in the wolf introduction program in Yellowstone National 

Park. Our emphasis during that time was on the impacts wolves would have on livestock and livestock 

producers once they left Yellowstone National Park. We were very much aware that once wolves were 

placed into Yellowstone National Park, they would soon leave that location. 
45 


26784.043

Another aspect of our concern during that initial period was that once wolves reached the scientific 

number needed to be considered recovered, the courts would not allow the federal government to delis! 

them from the Endangered Species Act. This concern proved to be valid. 

In 1994 wolves from Canada were brought into pens located in Yellowstone National Park. In the 

interest of full disclosure, our organization represented by the American Farm Bureau filed a lawsuit to 

prevent this action from occurring. The US Federal Judge ruled in favor of the Farm Bureau on one 

count but that decision was overturned on appeal. 

Once wolves were introduced into Yellowstone, it only took seven years to reach the number 

established by scientists for a recovered population. The recovery numbers established by these 

scientists was 10 breeding pairs of wolves or 100 wolves in each ofthe three recovery areas or 300 

wolves throughout Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. After Wyoming adopted and amended state statutes 

to accommodate concerns raised by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Agency issued a final rule to 

delist wolves in idaho, Montana and Wyoming in 2008. 

Now, almost a decade after the final rule was issued by the US Fish and Wildlife, we have worked our 

way through the court system, gone beyond the recovery numbers by over three times and probably 

used a small forest on legal papers to arrive at the point recommended by the US Fish & Wildlife 

Service in 2008 where wolves in Wyoming are now being managed by our state's wildlife management 

agency. 

So the question can be asked, why would S. 1514 be necessary if wolves in Wyoming are now under 

state management? 

We believe there are a couple of important reasons to go forward with Section 8 of S. 1514. First, we 

believe that Congress has a responsibility to citizens whom have been impacted by this process to 

weigh in and make it known they feel the process that Wyoming went through is unacceptable. When 

the U.S. Government makes an arrangement on what is necessary to recover a species and the 

Executive Branch lives up to that arrangement but the Judicial Branch abrogates that agreement, the 

Legislative Branch should weigh in. This is exactly what occurred when Congress stepped in and 

legislatively mandated delisting of wolves in Montana and Idaho. It seems appropriate they also weigh 

in, even after the fact, to show their support for the Executive Branch's 2008 de listing action. 

Secondly, anyone who may face the possibility of a species being introduced into their area would 

naturally look at the experience in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. Instead of working to improve a 

species the citizens would work against such an effort because history has shown that even when the 

agreed upon outcome is achieved, there are some who can afford a protracted legal battle to draw the 

process out long after a de listing should occur. 

One of the persistent complaints we hear from our landowners is that having an endangered species on 

your land is a significant liability. This committee has heard testimony on ways to improve the 

Endangered Species Act. We suggest that passage ofS. 1514 would provide a statement from the 

Legislative Branch that, even under the current ESA, Congress feels that once a recovery goal is 

reached a species should be de listed. 

Regarding Section 7, this section is an opportunity to de list wolves in the Western Great Lakes Region. 

Wolves in this region also long ago reached the necessary recovery goals. In conversations we've had 

with our counterparts in those areas, they shared the same frustration we in Wyoming had where a goal 
46 


26784.044

was reached but the agreement to de list was thwarted. The farmers and ranchers in this area have 

experienced some of the same impacts as farmers and ranchers in Wyoming. Turning over 

management of wolves to those states will afford some flexibility that may not be available under the 

current federal management. 

In a time of tight federal budgets where agencies must establish priorities on where they spend their 

limited funds, releasing management of wolves to the states is an easy step which would allow the Fish 

and Wildlife Service to focus their limited financial resources on other species. Spending funds on a 

recovered species makes little sense. 

Conclusion: 

The Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation supports sections 7 and 8 ofS. 1514. Senate action on these 

sections will provide an important statement to those affected landowners. Passage of these sections 

will provide a statement of support that shows once recovery goals are met and the Executive Branch 

agrees that management should be turned over to the states this body feels it is important the federal 

government lives up to this agreement. We thank you for the opportunity to comment on these sections 

of this legislation. 
47 


26784.045

The Voice of Fish & Wildlife Agencies: AFW A Press Releases 

Home About 

Tht~ A'FWA Str~tQQist 

Members CommiUees Focus Areas Events 

Thll Anoddon off'iln and \Midllte A981'1C1811 ~pportl tile 1"40\KlW\t-'it\ of the 

Hunlin;Hentege anti Envirumllnlallegaqr F'l'tller\'DDn (HELP}for\NiiQiife 

A(:'l(;\ 15.Ji1~ 'T'Ntl.bipartlaalklgl81ationwoulclreMIItwl'IH-II'I'II)OI'Url1 

~progranJendprovlcleredet'al~darlt,roraportemen. 

US. Senator Jc;tln BalraHo (R·'NV), dllfrman af lhe Sc1111:8 Commotteflo on 

Enlfii'OMIIIftl and Public WorM (EP'N), _IOinecl 'Mth .sen.tcn Ben Crin 

(0-MD), SMiley Moen Capito (R.IMI~, A~ l<tobuc:l:1ar (O·MN}, John 

BoQzman (R-Aft), Jfl(l T•mmy BaldMn (0-Wl) Ia lntrvduce the H~ 

H811\aga and EnWDn.ITIItrltltl Legacy Prlltetvation (HELP) fof VoAklllfa Aet on. 

Frlday.JUne30,2017. 

"This legialalMI pac~Ut;elril move forward and ldlet'lglhen 1 nl.rnbetof 

conMrVation programs ttW •• lmpOftanlto otr nation's outdoor hei'Magft anCJ 

filh andWtdlile rMOI.II'Ch," Nld Nick \Mity. Prescient of me A8S(l(ldoo ol' 

Fltlhand\Midiii'•.Agenc:ae•and Ex&a.iiMI onaornrtne Flonc:t:a Fill! end 

'MJdllfe COnsaNatlon Colnfnjnion. "Th11 biU will r•l'flllrrn Ole trwmenuous valUe 

oi'COilleNAIIonpartnetsl'llpaandthe~ toleforNtei!Uliii'JQwildlile 

$08fldesW!IIidng dololylrilhfWnl, lnbal anc1 induslr)' p8rtl"'88"t and noog~orgatnltlOfts" 

"TNt Assod81wn almngly tul)portllhls lmpcutanl legiSfatKJn,P Hid EIUieutive 

Director Ron Ragan "We~ ~1hallhll Cl'l!hm'1an andb!ll 

~SC1'11~1t!tFiehHabilatCOllM'YaUonthrou;hPa~ 

prov!aloM n U'MI, HEt..P 1or\1Wdlda Act" 

SpeCH'icaHy,theHELPfor\oWdllii,Aqd 

• R......chortz• l'lll North Am8flcan \l'lfllllnCie. ConeNIIbon At.t until 2023; 

• R$8Uth01tle N N8tional Fl&h lind Wilci'Df.l Foundalian Ac1: Until2023, 

• R6Mllhottze hi NeoWpal Mlgndory BirdCOil~Ad.l.ll'llll :202~; 

• ProtlbtjUdlaall'hiiiW oflh•flnal rulede-blli'IQ the gnsywolin'IN)'otnmg 

tnat wealltltl~ by 1M! U S. Couf1 of Appealtl for ltta Dtttl1d Of COill'llbla on 

Mard\3, .:2011 and ~ublilhed on May 1, 2011, 

• Mandelfllh•l11istulllC8 ot the fln8l nJI8 Qe-listing ll'tepy wo11'1n the westem 

~at Lallesendpi'Ohllollajudtdal re'tinr; 

• Ra8\Jihaiall\a Cnnapeake Bay Ptogram ~rid 2023.. 

• Rnultlorize the CnnapeaQ BBY Gai&W~tp and walertrails natwDric. and lhll 

Ct1eeapoilue Bay aat.wars Gfarlta All:~ Program ~1112023; 

• Fmalize pertnareblp& BmOfiQ publie ega.ndell .m~ oilier ~nterueled p.tties for 

PR)rn:olii'IQfilhc::onHI'Vdon: 

• PnMtntfll~ r.om being t\411:.1 lfabtD for b!r<l b11tllng: for 1\Uflllrto pwpous if 

thsylldn«etoUSOAendstalo~albeslptlldices.and. 

•Pn:lmolemllluildin;IMielP£1n151onCIIpllbliclaveliWigea 

RetumfD'<M 

Media Center 

Sean:h A.FWA Prau 

ReteaeKA.rtldea: 

02017! AUQellllion offtah P1d Wikih(e Al!encifl IJ • wJ. 

Page I of! 

State Agerx:ia' Soc181 Medi• I ContliCit lit t'lltft:JS ! Wtldhfl! .t. Sport F11h ll:e!~loJ&I\QI11nL'll ... 1UIIJ:I ) Tefrt'li I Prw~ ! Phalm. i Succo!u Slotiu 

... "--" b1 hcy~_,,'b!li 

http:l/www.fishwildlife.org/index.php?section=afwa_press_releases&prrid=347 7/17/2017 
48 


26784.046

ASSOCIATION of 

FISH &wl!DLlrl 

AGENCIES 

Fa:-;: 20:! ,))().9869 

EmruJ· .nfo~.~£dt\Y:.ld.Ufr Otf 

Statement for the Record 

Submitted to the 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Regarding the 

Hunting Heritage and Environmental Legacy Preservation for Wildlife Act (S. 1514) 

By the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

july 18, 2017 

The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (Association) writes to express our strong 

support and sincere appreciation to Chairman Barrasso and Senator Cardin for introducing 

the Hunting Heritage and Environmental Legacy Preservation for Wildlife Act (HELP for 

Wildlife Act, S. 1514). The Association represents its state fish and wildlife agency 

members (state agencies) on Capitol Hill and before the Administration to advance 

favorable fish and wildlife conservation policy and funding and works to ensure that all 

entities work collaboratively on the most important issues. All 50 states are members. 

The Association applauds the HELP for Wildlife Act and the broad range of bipartisan 

provisions that support state agencies' authority for the management fish and wildlife 

within their borders as precious resources held in trust for the public, and we support all of 

the partnership-based habitat conservation provisions in the bill. In support of state 

agencies' authority to manage fish and wildlife, the bill provides clear definitions under the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act for determining the baiting of migratory birds; a provision that is 

much needed to provide clarity to farmers, landowners, migratory bird hunters, and 

conservation law enforcement officers when faced with ratooning rice crops and to reduce 

unintended liability for producers when settling crop insurance claims following crop 

losses caused by a natural disaster. Further, the provision affords the opportunity for 

enhanced state-level coordination between the USDA Cooperative Extension Service state 

offices and state agencies when defining normal agricultural practices, based on crop type 

and conditions, to further guide interpretation of the new baiting definitions. These are 

activities that must occur at the state level to be implemented correctly and successfully. 

Second, the bill returns management authority of recovered gray wolves, a conservation success 

story and a species that has well exceeded delisting requirements in the Western Great Lakes and 

Wyoming, back to those states. This provides much needed management consistency and certainty 

for the states, its citizens, and its wildlife resources. These delisting provisions do not alter the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), but instead support the US Fish and Wildlife Service's Congressional 
49 


26784.047

testimony that wolves have fully recovered and fulfill Congressional intent under the ESA, which is 

returning a fully recovered species back to the states for management. Congress never intended for 

recovered species to remain under the protections of the ESA in perpetuity. The time has come to 

recognize and celebrate gray wolf recovery as national conservation success story. 

Third, the bill reaffirms the states' authority to regulate sport fishing tackle under the Toxic 

Substances Control Act. The ability to use fishing tackle made, whole or in part, of lead is 

extremely important to anglers and the sport fishing industry across the nation in order 

provide manufacturing flexibility, the ability to utilize other metals in production and 

create more options for anglers, provide reliable tackle, and manage costs. The impacts to 

fish and wildlife from lead ingestion are highly variable due to differences in species 

susceptibility, habitat characteristics, and exposure in the environment. These differences 

require unique management approaches tailored to the specific circumstances and 

situation. State agencies are best equipped to implement individually-crafted management 

solutions to address specific environmental issues. Further, state agencies utilize public 

education and voluntary or incentive-based programs, where appropriate in lieu of 

regulation, to protect fish and wildlife resources based on the best available science to 

inform management decisions, collaboration with diverse stakeholders, and identification 

of the most appropriate solutions to address unique fish and wildlife management 

situations. 

The Association supports the many provisions in the HELP for Wildlife Act that enhance 

proactive, non-regulatory opportunities for state agencies to work cooperatively with their 

conservation partners and private landowners, and leverage fiscal resources and human 

capacities and expertise to improve the management of habitats for fish and wildlife as well 

as increase outdoor recreation opportunities. 

The Association sincerely thanks Chairman Barrasso, Senator Cardin, and the other bill cosponsors for including authorization of the National Fish Habitat Conservation Through 

Partnerships Act. This provision is a long-standing priority for the Association, and its 

authorization would help provide certain and consistent federal funding that can be 

leveraged with other state, private and non-profit funds through state-led and community 

supported partnerships. These Fish Habitat Partnerships work proactively and voluntarily 

to conserve, restore and enhance fish and fish habitat across the nation, providing 

thousands of jobs and opportunities for rural economic growth and stability. ln short, the 

authorization reaffirms the duties of the National Fish Habitat Board, identifies the 

responsibilities and expectations of the Fish Habitat Partnerships, and provides a minimum 

of SO% non-federal match requirements and regular reporting on fish and fish habitat 

restoration progress to the appropriate Congressional committees, among other 

requirements. To date, 20 Fish Habitat Partnerships have self-organized to implement 

more than S99 fish habitat projects across SO states in support of the state-driven National 

Fish Habitat Action Plan. The Association is excited about the fish habitat conservation 

opportunities that will stem from enactment of this legislation, and we look forward to 

working with the bill sponsors toward enactment. 

2 
50 


26784.048

The HELP for Wildlife Act also would reauthorize additional important conservation 

programs with proven track-records of success including the North American Wetlands 

Conservation Act, which is extremely effective in leveraging non-federal funds to 

voluntarily conserve, restore, enhance and manage wetland habitat for migratory birds and 

other wildlife. The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act provides much needed 

fiscal resources to conserve neotropical migratory birds across their migration routes and 

lifecycles, many of which are state species of greatest conservation need identified by state 

agencies. Additionally, reauthorization of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

provides much needed and additional funding and opportunities to pull together publicprivate partnerships across diverse interests to address fish and wildlife conservation 

challenges, creating opportunities for enhanced habitat and species conservation across 

important landscapes. 

The HELP for Wildlife Act recognizes the importance of Chesapeake Bay recovery by 

reauthorizing the Chesapeake Bay Program and Chesapeake Bay Initiative. The Chesapeake 

is the nation's largest estuary and a legendary fishing, boating, and waterfowl hunting 

location. These programs provide important funds for a regional partnership that 

coordinates ongoing restoration of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed, and they 

support the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network. 

Finally, the HELP for Wildlife Act would provide much needed funding and support for the 

construction, expansion, and maintenance of public target ranges on national forests and 

Bureau of Land Management lands. Public ranges are in short supply in many areas, and 

this provision would help meet the increasing public demand for safe places to participate 

in recreational shooting sports activities and for others to hone their marksmanship skills. 

Also, expanded recreational shooting sports infrastructure will help continue and possibly 

generate additional conservation revenue by facilitating shooting sports activities that are 

fundamentally linked to dedicated excise taxes on firearms, ammunition and archery 

equipment which is subsequently apportioned to state agencies for wildlife and habitat 

conservation work through the Wildlife Restoration Program a cornerstone of 

conservation funding in this country. Across the country there is a growing interest in the 

recreational shooting sports, and state agencies need the flexibility that is provided in this 

legislation to meet the changing needs of their constituents as well as the safety 

expectations of the public. 

The Association strongly supports the HELP for Wildlife Act and applauds your leadership 

on this comprehensive, bipartisan conservation and outdoor recreation legislation. 

Collectively, all of these programs and provisions create synergy among a broad range of 

diverse interests to create partners that conserve, restore and enhance fish, wildlife and 

their habitats. They leverage federal, state, private, and non-profit funds as well as 

expertise and human capital to assist private landowners in conserving our nation's 

cherished fish and wildlife resources for the benefit and enjoyment of future generations. 

The Association looks forward to working with you toward enactment of this legislation 

which will allow the fish and wildlife conservation legacy that is unique to this nation to 

continue. 

3 
51 


26784.049

Testimony of 

Jeff Crane 

President 

Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation 

Before the 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

Regarding 

S. 1514, the "HELP for Wildlife Act" 

Julyl9,2017 
52 


26784.050

Good morning Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and members of the Committee. 

My name is Jeff Crane, and for the past 12 years I have served as the President of the 

Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation (CSF). Established in 1989, CSF works with the 

Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus (CSC), the largest. most active bipartisan caucus on Capitol 

Hill. With nearly 300 Members of the Congress from both the House and Senate, current Senate 

CSC Co-Chairs are Senators Jim Risch (ID) and Joe Manchin (WV), and Vice-Chairs are 

Senators Deb Fischer (NE) and Heidi Heitkamp (ND). 

Thirteen years ago, CSF extended the legislative network from Washington, DC to states across 

the country, establishing the bipartisan National Assembly of Sportsmen's Caucuses, which 

today is made up of 48 state legislative caucuses, and includes over 2,000 legislators. Eight years 

ago, CSF established a bipartisan Governors Sportsmen's Caucus, which today includes 33 

Governors and one Lieutenant Governor. Together, this collective force of bipartisan elected 

officials work to protect and advance hunting, angling, recreational shooting and trapping for the 

nearly 40 million sportsmen and women who spend $90 billion annually on our outdoor pursuits. 

Taking a moment to put things into historical perspective, the idea of conservation in America 

began with members of the sportsmen's community, who introduced game laws and programs to 

protect natural resources - leading to the creation of state and federal fish and wildlife agencies. 

Nearly 80 years ago, the hunting community led the charge for the passage of the Federal Aid in 

Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson Act) which redirected excise taxes on firearms and 

ammunition to a dedicated fund to be used specifically for conservation purposes. Further, 

revenue from sportsmen's licenses was also permanently linked to conservation, laying the 

foundation for what is now the unique American System of Conservation Funding, a "user payspublic benefits" program that is the financial backbone of the most successful conservation 

model in the world. Through time, this System has expanded and now includes the fishing and 

boating communities- with the passage of the Federal Aid in Sportfish Restoration Act (also 

known as the Dingell-Johnson Act, and the subsequent Wallop-Breaux Amendment) as well as 

the archery community. The funds collected through these programs, totaling over $16 billion, 

plus millions of dollars annually in license and permit fees, are the lifeblood of state fish and 

wildlife agencies the primary managers of our nation's fish and wildlife resources. These 

critical conservation dollars fund a variety of efforts including: enhanced fish and wildlife habitat 

and populations, recreational access to public and private lands, shooting ranges and boat access 

facilities, wetlands protection and its associated water filtration and flood retention functions, 

and improved soil and water conservation -all which benefit the American public. 

It is also worth noting that unlike some other outdoor recreational activities, hunting and 

shooting, in particular, are under constant siege by well-funded, politically active and litigious 

extremist groups that are intent on using whatever means necessary to put an end to the traditions 

we cherish. Through the use of frivolous lawsuits and judicial action, these anti-usc and animal 

rights extremists are using the courts instead of relying on science-based wildlife management to 

achieve their intolerant anti-hunting and fishing agenda. Legal challenges to the application of 

the statutory and administrative policies that guide federal land management and conservation 

are effectively tying the hands of the public land managers and state wildlife officials, which in 

turn, degrade habitat quality and deny access and opportunity. 

2 
53 


26784.051

The provisions in this legislation attempt to address many of these issues and should provide 

certainty that our sportsmen's heritage will be protected into the future. CSF supports the 

"HELP for Wildlife Act" and would like to draw particular attention to the following provisions 

in the bill: 

Section 2: Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act 

Section 2 would allow states to use the excise taxes already collected on sporting equipment and 

ammunition to develop and maintain much-needed public shooting ranges, ultimately generating 

increased wildlife conservation funding. Hunters, recreational shooters and firearms, archery, 

and ammunition manufacturers are the largest financial supporters of wildlife conservation 

throughout the United States, having contributed more than $7 billion to habitat conservation and 

wildlife management through Pittman-Robertson excise tax payments since the program's 

inception. In recent years, contributing as much as much as $800 million annually to habitat 

conservation, wildlife management, and science based research. A significant portion of this 

amount is directly attributable to recreational shooters who, per-capita, spend even more than 

hunters on firearms and ammunition subject to these important excise taxes. 

Despite the unqualified success of this historic "user pays- public benefits" system, PittmanRobertson funds have not always been administered in a manner that encourages the creation 

of recreational shooting opportunities. As a result, opportunities for both recreational and 

competitive shooting have declined significantly in recent years. Section 2 would help address 

this loss of access and opportunity by providing states with more flexibility in their use of 

Pittman-Robertson funds to develop and improve public shooting ranges. 

Specifically, it would amend an existing requirement that Pittman-Robertson funding used for 

shooting ranges be obligated within two years by allowing the funds to accrue over five years. 

This extension would allow individual projects to be funded over multiple budget 

cycles and significantly enhance the ability of states to build and maintain shooting ranges. In 

addition, the legislation would limit the unnecessary exposure to liability that land management 

agencies may face when providing recreational shooting opportunities on public lands. 

Section 2 would also reduce existing local and state Pittman-Robertson matching requirements 

for shooting ranges from 25% to I 0%. Pittman-Robertson funds are allocated to states on a 

formula basis. Therefore, while this change would provide additional flexibility and capability to 

states, the reimbursement rate would not result in increased federal spending. 

Finally, I would like to emphasize that Section 2 will help state and federal recreation managers 

reduce conflicts on public land. As our nation's population continues to grow and development 

occurs ncar our public forests, rangelands and grasslands, the increased use ofthese resources by 

a new and diverse set of recreational users has had a significant impact on the target shooters and 

hunters that have traditionally used these areas to practice their craft or sight in a rifle before 

hunting season. As this growth and development occurs, the reality is that recreational shooters 

will continue to be displaced by a regulatory and land management planning regime that has 

demonstrated a willingness to favor other recreational pursuits when conflict arises, having 

already shut down access to significant portions of our treasured federal lands. One way to 

3 
54 


26784.052

address this problem is by making sure that this lost opportunity- or at the very least, a portion 

of it can be offset by the construction or renovation of places that are conducive to target 

practice, hunting preparation and the shooting sports. 

Section 4: North American Wetlands Conservation Act 

Section 4 will extend the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NA WCA) through fiscal 

year 2022 at an annual authorization of $50,000,000. Originally passed in 1989, NA WCA 

provides matching grants to carry out wetlands conservation projects in the United States, 

Canada, and Mexico. Since enactment, NA WCA has provided nearly $4 billion in grants and 

matching funds to provide funding for 2,000 projects spanning over 27 million acres in all 50 

states. NA WCA requires that for every federal dollar contributed to the program, a non-federal 

source must equally match the $1 federal contribution. However, the program is often matched at 

a rate of $3 for every $1 of federal money, a sign that conservation groups, including sportsmen 

and women, are willing to have skin in the game. 

Wetlands benefit wildlife and people by acting as filters to provide clean water and to recharge 

groundwater supplies. In addition to serving as a natural water filtration system, wetlands also 

lessen the severity of damage caused by floods and hurricanes by acting as a buffer zone in 

coastal regions. NA WCA ensures protection of invaluable habitat for ducks, fish, mammals, 

alligators, and thousands of other species that call wetlands their home. NA WCA is the epitome 

of a successful public-private partnership that plays an instrumental role in protecting our 

treasured wetlands. 

Section 7: Reissuance of Final Rule Regarding Gray Wolves in Western Great Lakes 

Section 8: Reissuance of Final Regarding Gray Wolves in Wyoming 

The gray wolf populations in the Rocky Mountains and the Great Lakes areas have long 

exceeded their recovery goals. Accordingly, the wildlife professionals at the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) decided to remove both ofthese populations from the lists of Threatened 

and Endangered Species and return management authority to state wildlife agencies. These 

decisions by the FWS have been repeatedly overturned by the courts on procedural grounds that 

confuse the plain biological reality of a successful recovery with the unclear requirements of the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) itself regarding modern scientific knowledge on population 

boundaries. 

While Congress may or may not advance the various proposals that would address these 

deficiencies through a broader modernization of the ESA, I encourage the committee to recall 

that Congress passed a bipartisan measure to return Idaho and Montana gray wolves to state 

management in 2011. Since that time, these two states have demonstrated without question that 

they have both the capacity and willingness to manage gray wolves appropriately as their 

populations continue to increase. We are confident that slate managers in Wyoming and the 

Great Lakes states are equipped to take on these responsibilities and believe that affirming the 

ecologically sound rulings issued by FWS scientists during the previous administration is long 

overdue. 

4 
55 


26784.053

The FWS states that, "the gray wolf bas rebounded from the brink of extinction to exceed 

population targets by as much as 300 percent. Today, there are estimated to be 5,691 gray wolves 

in the contiguous United States. Wolf numbers continue to be robust, stable and self-sustaining." 

The recovery of the gray wolf is a success story and now their management needs to be rightfully 

transferred to the professionals at the state wildlife management agencies- the primary managers 

of our nation's fish and wildlife resources. 

Section 9: Modification of Definition of Sport Fishing Equipment Under Toxic Substances 

Control Act 

Section 9 would amend the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) to clarify that an existing 

exemption from TSCA regulation for sport fishing equipment as defined in the IRS Code, would 

be made permanent. Congress has already approved permanent protections to traditional 

ammunition, so this title would create a similar exemption for articles of fishing tackle subject to 

Wallop-Breaux and Dingeii-Johnson excise taxes. 

Anti-hunting and fishing interests have petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

to force the EPA to expand its TSCA authority in order to regulate traditional ammunition and 

recreational fishing tackle. These organizations assert that this is necessary to address significant 

impacts to wildlife populations that are resulting nationwide from the use of traditional tackle 

and ammunition. These exaggerations are little more than misleading scare tactics with no 

credible supporting science. Our natural resource professionals already have the necessary tools 

to address and mitigate any localized issues that might arise without the unwarranted 

involvement of the EPA and TSCA. 

Moreover, EPA's exercise ofTSCA authority over recreational fishing tackle would likely result 

in massive increases in the price of tackle for sportsmen due to the exponentially higher raw 

materials and manufacturing costs of using alternative metals. Not only would this result in the 

loss of anglers, it would also have untold detrimental impacts on countless manufacturing 

facilities resulting in the loss of thousands of jobs. 

In addition, organizations involved in anti-hunting and fishing campaigns fail to acknowledge 

that the detrimental economic impacts to the fishing tackle industry would also result in 

considerable reductions to the excise taxes the sport fishing manufacturers pay on their products 

as a means of funding habitat conservation and boating safety throughout the country. In fact, 

much of our country's tish and wildlife habitat exist solely as the result of these contributions. 

Section 9 would amend TSCA in a manner that serves to protect and enhance our fishing 

heritage while concurrently facilitating the important benefits that the recreational fishing 

industries contribute to the betterment of our nation's economy and treasured natural resources. 

Summary 

In summary, this is a common sense, non-controversial bill, with bipartisan support, that is 

beneficial for conservation and preserves our outdoor heritage. This legislation is also good for 

the American economy, and especially good for rural communities that surround our treasured 

public lands and waters. This legislation helps ensure that America's sporting and wildlife 

heritage will remain available to generations of hunters, anglers, recreational shooters, and 

wildlife enthusiasts to enjoy. 

5 
56 


26784.054

CSF would like to thank the sponsors of the important piece oflegislation for their bipartisan 

work in the Senate. We would look forward to working with members of the committee to get 

this bill passed out of the U.S. Senate and enacted into law. Thank you. 

6 
57 


26784.055

n 

Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2017 

On June 30, Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus (CSC) Member, and Chairman of the 

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Senator John Barrasso (\NY) 

introduced 5.1514, the Hunting Heritage and Environmental Legacy Preservation for 

Wildlife Act (HELP for Wildlife Act). 

This bipartisan legislation would increase public access for sportsmen and women, 

improve fish and wildlife habitat, and reauthorize funding for fish and wildlife 

conservation programs. 

Also included are a wide range of pro-sportsmen's provisions, which would: 

Reauthorize the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) through 

fiscal years 2018to 2022. This important program ensures the protection of 

millions of acres of wetland habitat spanning over all 50 states. 

Ensure that normal agricultural practices are not misconstrued as attempts to bait 

migratory game birds. 

Provide funding and support for the construction and expansion of public target 

shooting ranges on Bureau of Land Management lands and National Forests. 

Ensure that sportsmen and women have the proper infrastructure to participate 

safely in recreational shooting. 

Reaffirm the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) rule to remove gray wolves from 

the Endangered Species Act in the Great Lakes and Wyoming, and returns the 

management of these populations to state wildlife agencies. 

Ensure that traditional lead-based sport fishing equipment is exempt from the 

Toxic Substances Control Act. 

"CSF would like to thank the sponsors of the important piece of legislation for their 

bipartisan work in the Senate. We would look forward to working with members of the 

Committee to get this bill passed out of the U.S. Senate and enacted into law," said 

Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation President Jeff Crane. 
58 


26784.056

Contact: Casey Skeens, NWF Communications Manager, ~~~§IJ~"CJ:@t'JY'ILom. 202· 797 ~808 

Bipartisan Senate Coalition Introduces Sportsmen's Bill 

WASHINGTON, D.C. (June 30, 2017)- Today, a bipartisan group of senators introduced the "Hunting Heritage and 

Environmental Legacy Preservation for Wildlife Act" (HELP for Wildlife Act) that would expand access for sportsmen 

throughout the U.S. while also enhancing provisions that will conserve wildlife habitat The National Wildlife Federation 

applauds Senators Barrasso, Cardin, Boozman, Klobuchar, Capito, and Bald'Nin for working together to move a bill 

foiWard that will help wildlife and sportsmen alike. 

"The bipartisan sportsmen's bill will advance key priorities of sportsmen and women, including important wildlife 

conservation programs," said QpJJl!l O'M~rq, president and chief executive officer of the National Wildlife Federation. "The 

National Wildlife Federation's membership includes millions of sportsmen and sportswomen among our 51 state and 

territorial affiliates. While other bipartisan sportsmen bills have come close to passage in recent years, this bill, led by 

Chairman Barrasso and Senators Cardin, Boozman, Klobuchar, Capito, and Baldwin, represents a great bipartisan effort 

to conserve America's outdoor heritage for hunters, anglers, campers, hikers, and wildlife enthusiasts, while helping to 

restore America's wildlife populations. By protecting and bolstering our outdoor heritage, we can help recover America's 

wildlife and empower the next generation of conservation champions.~ 

Over the past few years, other bipartisan sportsmen bills have been introduced in Congress but none have been signed 

into law. Some of the provisions that the bill contains include; 

Target Practice and Marksmanship- facilitates the construction and expansion of public target ranges, 

including ranges on land managed by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. 

Baiting of Migratory Game Birds- prohibits baiting of migratory game birds, except in the case of normal 

agricultural practices. 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) reauthorization- provides matching grants to 

organizations, states and local governments, and private land owners for the acquisition, restoration, and 

enhancement of wetlands critical to migratory birds. 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) reauthorization- funds urgent conservation needs with 

matching private funds. 

Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act reauthorization- supports programs that conserve birds which 

summer in United States and spend the winter months in the Tropics. 

Delisting Great Lakes and Wyoming Wolves- reissues final December 2011 rule to delis! the gray wolf in the 

Western Great Lakes and the final September 2012 rule to delis! the gray wolf in Wyoming under the Endangered 

Species Act. 

Chesapeake Bay Program and Chesapeake Bay Initiative reauthorization- provides funds for a regional 

partnership coordinating the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed as well as for technical 

assistance focusing on conservation stewardship through the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails 

Network. 

National Fish Habitat Conservation Act- enacts programs to conserve fish and fish habitat through 

partnerships that foster fish habitat conservation and enhance fish and wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Visit the National Wildlife Federation Media Center at NWF.orpiN~oThe ti!J1JQ1H1L!!:I!Id.itlPJ:~£.LdJ1LflliQ!1 is America's largest consetVation organization, uniting all Americans to ensure wildlffe 

thrive in a rapidly changing world. Follow us on FacAl2!J.Qli. and tns@!J!QIJl 

### 
59 


26784.057

Testimony of the National Wildlife Federation 

In support ofS. 1514, the "Help for Wildlife Act" 

July 17, 2017 

Submitted to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

For the record oftheJuly 19,2017 

"Legislative Hearing on S. 1514, the Hunting Heritage and 

Environmental Legacy Preservation (HELP) for Wildlife Act." 

The National Wildlife Federation submits this testimony in support of the Hunting Heritage and 

Environmental Legacy Preservation for Wildlife Act, S. 1514, on behalf of our approximately 6 

million members and supporters, including hundreds of thousands of hunters and anglers who are 

members of the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) and our state and territorial affiliates. 

NWF would like to commend the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works for 

its leadership in the 115'h Congress in advancing the conservation interests of hunters, anglers 

and other outdoor enthusiasts, and doing so in a truly bipartisan fashion. NWF has supported 

Congress' efforts to pass a bill for sportsmen and women for over three Congresses now. All of 

those efforts have come up short. The Committee is showing leadership by continuing to try to 

pass a bill for sportsmen, and by taking a bipartisan approach that is most likely to lead to of 

actual passage of legislation. 

The Committee got off to a strong, bipartisan start on sportsmen and conservation policy with the 

WILD Act, S. 826, an innovative and non-controversial conservation bill that quickly passed 

through the Senate with unanimous consent. The Wild Act offers prizes for innovations in 

addressing conservation challenges, addresses invasive species, and, like HELP, reauthorizes 

numerous conservation programs including Partners for Fish and Wildlife and multi-national 

species programs for elephants and other wildlife. 

The Committee has taken a similar approach to S. 1514, the HELP for Wildlife Act. The 

Committee has put together a package of provisions that advance a variety of conservation and 

outdoor recreation interests. that have attracted broad support, and that avoid some of the 

intractable provisions that have plagued previous sportsmen bills. The HELP Act is written so 

that it could pass on its own merits. The HELP Act could also serve as a basis for a broader 

Senate sportsmen package when combined with provisions from the Senate Committee on 

Energy and Natural Resources. We encourage this Committee to work with the Energy and 

Natural Resources Committee to come up with the strongest overall Senate sportsmen and 

conservation package. 
60 


26784.058

July 17,2017 

HELP would reauthorize numerous important conservation programs for 5 years. NWF strongly 

supports these programs. We advocate for the conservation interests of hunters, anglers, and 

outdoors enthusiasts, and are pleased to see a healthy dose of conservation in this sportsmen's 

package. 

The Chesapeake Bay Program and Chesapeake Bay Initiative provide funds for a regional 

partnership coordinating the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed as well 

as for technical assistance focusing on conservation stewardship through the Chesapeake 

Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network. The Chesapeake Bay is the United States' 

largest estuary, a source of healthy food and outdoor recreation for millions of Americans 

that is experiencing an ecological recovery due to these programs after many decades of 

degradation. 

The North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NA WCA) provides matching grants to 

organizations, state/local governments, and private landowners for the acquisition, 

restoration, and enhancement of wetlands critical to migratory birds. Maintaining 

wetlands in the face of economic pressures to drain them and convert them to other uses 

is critical to maintaining waterfowl populations and the huge recreational and economic 

benefits they bestow. 

The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act supports programs that conserve birds 

which summer in United States and spend the winter months in the Tropics. Bird 

migrations are one of the world's most amazing and accessible wildlife spectacles, and 

the basis for one of the most popular outdoor activities and economic engines 

birdwatching. 

The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation funds urgent conservation needs with 

matching private funds. NFWF provides vital support for restoring wildlife populations 

and habitats including in large ecosystems like the Delaware Bay. 

HELP would also authorize a National Fish Habitat Conservation Act to carry out programs to 

conserve fish and fish habitat through partnerships that foster fish habitat conservation and 

enhance fish and wildlife-dependent recreation. 

HELP includes the Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act", which amends the 

Pittman-Robertson Act to allow up to 10% of this important program's wildlife conservation 

funding to be redirected to fund the construction and expansion of public target ranges, including 

ranges on land managed by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. The 

growing popularity of recreational shooting has led to significant increases in P-R funding for 

state-based wildlife conservation and hunter education due to increases in the excise taxes 

collected on weapons and ammunition. This has also created an increased demand for public 

shooting ranges. NWF recognizes the need for more public shooting ranges in many parts of the 

country to meet the demand for target practice and for recreational shooting. State wildlife 

agencies, however, remain in desperate need of more funding for wildlife conservation. NWF is 

optimistic this shift in funding from wildlife conservation and toward shooting ranges will lead 

to an even greater amount of funding being returned to wildlife conservation as a result of 

increased spending on shooting equipment. 
61 


26784.059

July 17, 2017 

The HELP for Wildlife Act removes the Great Lakes population of wolves from the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) by reinstating a Fish and Wildlife Service wolf delisting rule overturned by 

repeated rounds of litigation. NWF has been a strong supporter of the recovery of the gray wolf 

under the federal and state Endangered Species Acts, but the wolf population in Minnesota, 

Wisconsin and Michigan has clearly recovered, exceeding their original recovery targets by 

approximately ten times. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that there are well over 

2000 wolves in Minnesota, over 850 in Wisconsin, and over 600 in Michigan. The wolf 

management plans of the Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin Departments of Natural 

Resources have been approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and all three agencies have 

demonstrated their ability to successfully manage wolves. It is time for wolves in these three 

states to be returned to management by the state agencies, freeing the Fish and Wildlife Service 

to redirect scarce resources to much more highly endangered species. Yet the unique listing 

history of the gray wolf, and the lack of clarity under the ESA around delisting species, makes it 

unlikely wolves in the Great Lakes will be removed from the ESA in the foreseeable future 

without Congressional intervention. For example, the Fish and Wildlife Service attempted to 

de list wolves in the Great Lakes four times between 2003 and 20 II. The continued labelling of 

this obviously recovered high profile population as threatened and endangered is straining the 

credibility of the ESA. While there are legitimate unresolved legal issues raised by the litigation 

over wolves in the Great Lakes, plaintiffs' pursuit of injunctions against state management while 

pursuing broader legal claims has exacerbated this situation. NWF therefore accepts 

congressional intervention in this instance as the most likely way to return this recovered 

population of wolves to state management. 

Wolves in Wyoming have already been removed from the ESA in the wake of a recent court 

ruling upholding the Fish and Wildlife Service's delisting rule covering Wyoming. The HELP 

Act shields this ruling from further judicial review. This provision is no longer needed to return 

wolves to state management in Wyoming, but, as in the Great Lakes, it does not prevent wolves 

in Wyoming from being relisted under the ESA in the future if conditions warrant it. 

HELP would exempt lead sport fishing equipment such as lures and weights from regulation 

under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Lead is toxic for wildlife and people, and the 

state and territorial affiliates ofNWF have passed five resolutions supporting the reduction of 

lead in shot and tackle. NWF has worked for decades on reducing the use of lead-based 

ammunition and fishing gear, and in our experience the most success has occurred where broad 

coalitions of hunters, anglers, conservationists, industry, and government agencies come together 

to develop effective solutions based upon sound science. While we do not believe regulation will 

be required to move toward greater availability and use of non-lead fishing equipment, we do not 

think this provision in the HELP Act eliminating the possibility of federal regulation under 

TSCA is necessary. We are also concerned it could unintentionally undermine the success of 

voluntary phase out efforts underway. 

Finally, one area of vital importance to NWF and our members not addressed in the HELP Act is 

coastal Louisiana, aptly nicknamed "Sportsmen's Paradise" for its unparalleled hunting, fishing 

and wildlife viewing opportunities. But this paradise for sportsmen and sportswomen is 

disappearing, a Vanishing Paradise. Over two thousand square miles of coastal Louisiana has 
62 


26784.060

July 17, 2017 

disappeared since 1932, an area the size of Delaware. That is one third of the largest expanse of 

coastal wetlands in the lower 48 states. Without decisive action, another two thousand square 

miles could disappear in as little as 50 years. We strongly support Louisiana's Coastal Master 

Plan which proposes controlled sediment diversions that will allow nature to begin rebuilding the 

delta of the Mississippi River, and we urge the Federal government to work with the state, using 

the funds flowing from the Deepwater Horizon settlements, to make real restoration happen now. 

NWF thanks the Committee for its bipartisan efforts to pass sportsmen conservation legislation, 

and for accepting our testimony in support of those efforts. 
63 


26784.061

Introduce e ongcst 

e ckage of Sportsmen's 

in Years 

A package olhills introduced today has hipartisan support and will benefit 

habitat. access, and conser\'Otion[tmding 

Only hours ahead oftheir departure tor the Fourth of July recess, Senator John Barrasso (RWY), Senator Ben Cardin (0-MD), and a bipru1isan group of senators introduced 1514, a 

strong package of bills that would benefit fish and wildlife habitat nationwide, while funding 

critical watershed restoration efforts in the Mid-Atlantic and improving access for recreational 

shooters on public lands. 

The legislation would: 

Reauthorize the North American Wetlands Conservation Act-a grant program through which 

each federal dollar invested is matched an average o!'three times over by non-federal dollars-at 

$50 million armually through 2022. 

Authorize the National Fish Habitat Conservation Act, which was created to foster partnerships 

that improve conditions for fish species and enhance recreational1ishing opportunities. 

Reauthorize the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the nation's largest conservation grantmaker. 

Reauthorize Chesapeake Bay restoration program at $90 million per year through 2022. 

''What makes this effort different from sportsmen's packages of the more recent past is that, right 

from the outset, it deals with meaningful conservation priorities by reauthorizing tmd instituting 

programs that will actually enhance fish and wildlife populations, habitat, and access," says Whit 

Fosburgh, president and CEO of the "We applaud 

Sen. Barrasso. Sen. Cardin, Sen. Boozman, Sen. Klobuchar, Sen. Capito, and Sen. Baldwin for 

their leadership and recognition of what American hunters and anglers value," 

The legislation is not without controversy, but a provision to delist gray wolves in Wyoming and 

the Great Lakes has bipartisan support from lawmakers and has been recommended by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. "When we take recovered species oif the list, we strengthen the 

Endangered Species Act by making truly endangered species a priority--species shouldn't stay 

on the list forever," adds Fosburgh. "We trust in state fish and wildlife agencies to manage 

wildlife, and science indicates this is the next step for wolves." 

With the bipartisan support of the Chairman and members of the Senate Environment and Public 

Works Committee, this legislation has a good chance of moving forward quickly. 
64 


26784.062

July 18, 2017 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Environment and Public Works Committee 

United States Senate 

Washington DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Environment and Public Works Committee 

United States Senate 

Washington DC 20515 

The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, a coalition of 54 sportsmen's conservation and 

outdoor recreation organizations, seeking to guarantee all Americans a quality place to hunt and fish, 

would like to offer our strong support for S.1514, the Hunting Heritage and Environmental Legacy 

Preservation (HELP) for Wildlife Act. 

The provisions included in S.1514 represent some of the highest policy priorities for America's 40 million 

hunters and anglers. Quality habitat is simply essential for the future of hunting and fishing in the United 

States, and the HELP for Wildlife Act includes habitat provisions with long track records of success, 

including reauthorization of the critical North American Wetlands Conservation Act {NAWCA), and the 

reauthorization of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. S.1514 also includes the statutory 

authorization of fish habitat conservation language, which will ensure taxpayer dollars fund impactful 

and locally originated on-the-ground fish habitat projects all across the country. 

The HELP for Wildlife Act includes reauthorization of the Chesapeake Bay Program, an EPA-administered 

account that sees fully two-thirds of program funding re-granted to the states to help restore water 

quality and ease regulatory burdens. The Chesapeake watershed, at 64,000 square miles, is enormous, 

and is home to world class fishing and hunting opportunities. The Chesapeake Bay program not only 

seeks to restore the main stem Chesapeake, but in order to achieve that important goal, restores the 

local watersheds so important to sportsmen in Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, Virginia, 

and West Virginia. 

S.1514 also includes language to de list the gray wolf in Wyoming and across the Great Lakes region. 

TRCP strongly believes that the best way to strengthen the Endangered Species Act is to ensure that 

once recovered, species can be removed from the Endangered Species list and returned to state 

management. Science indicates that gray wolf populations have reached the point where their removal 

from the list is appropriate, and that state wildlife agencies have the tools to manage gray wolves 

moving forward. 

The HELP for Wildlife Act is a great example of Senate bipartisanship, with a long list of support that 

includes the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. We appreciate the Senate Environment and 

Public Works Committee moving forward quickly with a hearing, and hope that the Committee can 

move to markup this important legislation in the near future. 

Sincerely, 
65 


26784.063

Whit Fosburgh 

President and CEO 

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership 
66 

Senator BARRASSO. I will also note that my friend, Brian Nesvik, 

Chief Game Warden with the Wyoming Game and Fish, is testifying today in support of the bill. It is an honor. I had the honor 

of spending time with Brian on several occasions in 2009, including 

Thanksgiving dinner. At the time, he was deployed to Kuwait as 

the commander of the second of 300th Field Artillery unit, which 

had the mission to running convoy operations into Iraq in a very 

dangerous time. So thank you very much, Brian, for coming to be 

with us today to testify. 

Just as with the WILD Act and the Nuclear Energy Innovation 

and Modernization Act, which both passed this Committee earlier 

this year with strong bipartisan support, this bill is another example of how we can work together, both Democrat and Republican, 

to help protect the environment and grow the economy. So I look 

forward to working with my colleagues on moving this important 

legislation out of the Committee and pass it to the Senate floor. 

With that, I look forward to the testimony of our Ranking Member for his opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. 

To each of our witnesses, welcome. 

Brian, what branch of the service were you in? 

Mr. NESVIK. Senator, I am in the Army National Guard and continue to serve today. 

Senator CARPER. Navy solutes Army. I am a retired Navy captain. I appreciate you very much. I like to say different uniforms; 

same team. So we are glad you are here. 

Glad all of you are here. 

We haven’t seen Dale for about like 20 minutes, so it is nice to 

see you again. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. This is double duty. Twice the citizen, that is 

what you are. 

Welcome, everybody. 

We have considered, as you know, my colleagues know that most 

of this legislation before, and I have supported different iterations 

of sportsmen’s bills over the years. I think most of us have. I look 

forward to hearing from each of you. We look forward to hearing 

from each of you about this year’s bill, the HELP for Wildlife Act. 

I recognize the important role that sportsmen and other outdoor 

enthusiasts play in our economies. We are blessed in our State to 

have two beautiful, magnificent wildlife refuges right along the 

Delaware Bay and one of the nation’s newest national parks. So 

this is something that is close to home for us in Delaware. 

According to the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, Delaware has about 177,000 hunters. We only have 178,000 people. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Actually, we have almost a million. And anglers 

who spend $158 million annually and support almost 2,000 jobs. 

Almost 2,000 jobs. Many of these sportsmen and sportswomen also 

invest their time and resources to promote habitat conservation, in 

67 

part through programs that will be reauthorized through the HELP 

for Wildlife Act. 

Hunting is only one form of wildlife related recreation. A 2011 

Census study showed that more than 340,000 people enjoyed wildlife related recreation in Delaware, and 71 percent of them participated in wildlife watching specifically. Year after year, people come 

to the First State to observe the federally threatened red knot 

shorebirds which stop along the Delaware Bay to refuel on 

horseshow crab eggs along their amazing 9,000 mile migratory 

journey. 

As we consider the HELP for Wildlife Act, we must carefully balance the different interests at play in wildlife preservation and recreational activities across our country. This careful balance is especially difficult to strike when it comes to managing some of our nation’s most charismatic species, including the gray wolf. 

As Ranking Member of this Committee, I have made clear my 

firm commitment to ensuring that wildlife management decisions 

are guided and driven by the best available science. The idea of intervening in the current science based, publicly informed species 

management process to legislatively delist a species gives me great 

pause. 

In the case of gray wolves, the Committee must consider the 

strong support across our nation for wolf protection and the critical 

role that wolves play in their ecosystems. We will hear from witnesses today on both sides of this complex issue, and I am especially interested in their perspectives on how best to manage this 

special species. 

I would be remiss if I did not mention the new provisions in this 

bill to reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay program, the Chesapeake 

Bay Initiative Act. Our champion here to my left, my wingman on 

many issues involving Delmarva, Delmarva peninsula, Del, Mar, 

and Buzz is probably out there somewhere in the audience. I would 

be remiss if I did not mention the new provisions in this year’s bill 

to reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay, and we should applaud Ben for 

his leadership in important sections of the HELP Act for his leadership. 

As part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, Delaware takes its responsibilities to contribute to the Chesapeake Bay’s recovery and 

sustainability very seriously. I am particularly interested to hear 

what our witnesses have to say about how our Bay is doing. The 

Committee needs a full understanding of the Chesapeake Bay program role in assisting State efforts to restore the Bay and the role 

that the Chesapeake Gateways and Watertrails Network plays in 

advancing public understanding of and support for the Chesapeake 

restoration. 

Again, our thanks to all of you. We look forward to hearing from 

you and for you to share your expertise with us. Bring it on. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you very much, Senator Carper. 

We have a couple of members who have some guests today who 

are testifying, so I would like to first give Senator Boozman the opportunity to introduce Mr. Jeff Crow, who will be testifying today. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

calling this important hearing. I would just like to take a second 

68 

to give a special thanks to Jeff, of Hot Springs County, Arkansas, 

for coming here today and testifying. 

Director Crow began his career with the Arkansas Game and 

Fish Commission in 1986 and has been serving as Director since 

2016. In 1996 he accepted a position with the Arkansas State Police, where he had assignments in highway patrol, criminal investigations, training, and SWAT. He retired from law enforcement in 

2011, after 25 years of service. In 2012 he returned to the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission as a colonel of the agency’s Enforcement Division. In 2013 Jeff was promoted to Deputy Director, 

and the following year he became the agency’s Chief of Staff. 

Director Crow also served 25 years on active duty as a member 

of the Reserves in the United States Marine Corps. A combat veteran of Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom, he 

retired in 2007 at the rank of Sergeant Major. 

I think you have done everything. 

Director Crow holds an associate’s degree in Criminal Justice 

from National Park College, a bachelor’s degree in Organizational 

Management from John Brown University, and a master’s degree 

in Public Administration from Arkansas State University. With all 

this experience, I cannot think of anyone better to discuss why the 

HELP Act is great for the State of Arkansas and this nation. 

I would like to thank Director Crow for his service to the State 

of Arkansas and to this country. We thank you for agreeing to testify about this important legislation and look forward to your testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Boozman. 

I would like to offer now an opportunity to Senator Cardin to introduce Kim Coble, who is here to testify today. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, first of all, Mr. Chairman, thank you for 

conducting this hearing. Thank you for your leadership on this legislation. 

I am pleased that Kim Coble could be with us today. Kim is the 

Vice President for the Environmental Protection and Restoration at 

the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. She started her career at the 

Chesapeake Bay Foundation in 1992. We have been working on the 

Bay for a long time, Mr. Chairman, and Kim has been one of those 

key players as the senior scientist in the Foundation’s Virginia Office, Delmarva, the States of the Chesapeake Bay region, which includes six States and the District of Columbia. 

In 2003 she was named the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s Maryland Executive Director, where she directed policy and management of a diverse team of scientists, land use specialists, lawyers, 

grassroots coordinators, and volunteers to protect and restore the 

Chesapeake Bay, and then in 2011 she became the Foundation’s 

Vice President of Environmental Protection and Restoration. 

Mr. Chairman, I think this Committee has heard me mention 

many times how proud we are of the way that the Chesapeake Bay 

restoration efforts were handled. It started at the grassroots, the 

local levels with the State of Maryland, the State of Pennsylvania, 

the State of Virginia, the State of Delaware. We involved local governments and private sector, and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation 

has been a critical part of that team. 

69 

The reauthorization of the Chesapeake Bay program is a critical 

factor for the Federal partnership in the program, but the Bay efforts receive help from many different programs. Several are being 

reauthorized by the legislation that you introduced today. So it is 

a pleasure to have Kim with us today to explain the importance of 

the Federal role for the Chesapeake Bay. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you very much. 

Thank you all for being here. I will alert the witnesses that today 

there is a roll call vote sometime during this Committee, so you 

may see some of us go and come back. Don’t be offended; we just 

apologize in advance. We are going to need to vote and then come 

back. 

So, with that, I look forward to hearing the testimony, beginning 

with Brian Nesvik. 

STATEMENT OF BRIAN NESVIK, CHIEF GAME WARDEN, 

WYOMING GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT 

Mr. NESVIK. Well, good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Carper, and members of the Committee. I am glad to be back 

with the Committee. It is absolutely an honor to discuss these 

issues that are important to the citizens of my State and across the 

nation, and I will do my best here today to meet the Committee’s 

needs on this particular piece of legislation. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to open by passing along the sincere 

appreciation of the President of the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, Keith Culver. I spoke with Keith here in the last couple 

of days, and he is today presiding over a Wyoming Game and Fish 

Commission meeting in a town you are very familiar with, Afton, 

Wyoming. They are actually discussing some of the same issues 

that we will discuss here today. The Commission did want to pass 

along, though, their appreciation for yours and the Committee’s 

work on wildlife type legislation over the last several months. 

Mr. Chairman, as you are keenly aware, Wyoming is home to a 

rich and diverse wildlife resource that is valued by an equally rich 

and diverse constituency. Much of the State’s wildlife habitats remain in pristine condition and continue to provide wide open 

spaces and remote wild country for western iconic species like sagegrouse, grizzly bears, moose, gray wolves, pronghorn antelope, and 

elk. These resources directly affect and influence the quality of life 

for Wyoming’s citizens and visitors from all over the globe. 

As I analyzed the key provisions of this bill, two things struck 

me about the overarching themes. First, there is a reliance on the 

underlying trust and abilities of States to make decisions regarding 

important issues affecting their citizenry. Second, the bill places 

priority on, and provides resources for, America’s fish and wildlife 

resources and the places that they live. 

Wyoming citizens take very seriously their trust responsibility 

for the management of all wildlife within its borders. State leaders 

have invested significant resources and inspired a conservation 

ethic in all of its endeavors. Wyomingites pride themselves on balancing conservation with economic development and maintaining a 

quality of life that reflects their most deeply held western values. 

One of those most important values is the reliance on State manVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:11 Sep 27, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\26784.TXT SONYA
70 

agement of those wildlife occupying habitats within the boundaries 

of the State. 

Section 8 of this Act and its provisions to preserve wolves in a 

delisted status in Wyoming provides a mechanism to provide the 

State with predictability and commitment; predictability, the State 

will be able to focus on managing the gray wolf, and commitment 

that as Wyoming maintains a healthy and viable recovered gray 

wolf population, that it will be able to continue its management uninterrupted. 

The gray wolf population in our State has been recovered since 

2002, and the Service has now, on three occasions, published a rule 

that definitively states wolves are recovered and that Federal management is no longer needed. For over 15 years, Wyoming’s citizens 

have been extremely patient while the Service and the courts have 

wrestled with the status of a recovered population of wildlife within 

Wyoming’s borders. The citizens of the State are ready for predictability and commitments that ensure State management into the 

future, and this bill provides that. 

During the 2 years when Wyoming managed wolves under its 

current Wolf Management Plan, its wolf population thrived and remained far above recovery criteria. In fact, wolf populations and 

the number of breeding pairs occupying suitable habitats remained 

over 70 percent above the minimum requirements of the ESA. 

Because not all habitats are biologically and socially suitable, 

there is a need to manage wolves and mitigate conflicts between 

wolves and livestock and private property owners. The State’s track 

record is strong in its management of these conflicts, and during 

the 2 years when Wyoming managed the population, there were an 

average of 35 wolves removed by our agency consequential to livestock damage each year. Last year, under the authority of the Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Federal managers removed at least 113 

wolves in control actions in response to livestock depredation. 

As currently written, this Act reserves the responsibility for the 

Service to relist Wyoming’s gray wolf population if it becomes 

threatened or endangered in the future. The ESA mandates that 

the Service’s evaluation of all potential emerging threats or changing science and requires specific actions if recovery is not maintained. Despite the facts that the courts have been the lead in relisting species, they are not required to relist species, and this bill 

does not inhibit the responsibility of the Service to continue to 

oversee, for the post-delisting monitoring period, the wolf population in Wyoming. 

In Idaho and Montana, where delisting was achieved through 

congressional action, State management remains intact today, and 

the 5-year post-delisting monitoring requirement of the ESA has 

expired. Both States continue to manage a fully recovered gray wolf 

population, and there no longer exists any Federal oversight. 

Germane to the core tenets of the ESA is its intent and stated 

goal to recover and delist endangered species, and again, the provisions of this bill in section 8 that provides certainty to future management of Wyoming wolves is welcome. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would also like to provide my concise 

thoughts on other very important components of this bill. As I stated earlier in my opening comments, this bill provides a priority on 

71 

the protection and enhancement of wildlife habitats across America. The reauthorization of the North American Wetland Conservation Act, also known as NAWCA, is reflective of the priority Americans place on wildlife and wild places. 

In one project in our State, in the Upper Green River Basin in 

Western Wyoming, NAWCA was used in a big way, for its intended 

purpose. A $1 million NAWCA grant awarded to the Wyoming 

Game and Fish in 2013 protected and enhanced over 16,000 acres 

of critical habitat in the Pacific Flyway, benefiting wildlife and 

their habitats. Also important in that is that partners were able to 

match Federal dollars by nearly $3 million. 

Mr. Chairman, there are several other provisions of this bill 

where I offer additional perspective in my full written testimony, 

and I look forward to answering yours and the Committee’s questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nesvik follows:] 

72 


26784.064

Brian R. Nesvik 

Chief Game Warden/Chief of Wildlife Division 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

Brian Nesvik graduated from the University of Wyoming in 1994 with a B.S. in Wildlife and Fisheries 

Biology and Management. He served in a variety of assignments as a game warden around the state in 

laramie, Glendo, Casper, Elk Mountain and Pinedale before being promoted as the Regional Wildlife 

Supervisor in Cody in 2010. In May of 2011, he was promoted to his current position serving as the 

Chief Game Warden and Chief of the Wildlife Division for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 

In his current position, he oversees all terrestrial wildlife management and wildlife law enforcement for 

the Department. His team consists of over 200 game wardens, biologists, veterinarians, administrative 

support professionals and information and education specialists. 

Additionally, Nesvik has served in the Wyoming Army National Guard as an artillery officer since 1986. 

Nesvik served as a commander on two deployments to Operation Iraqi Freedom in Baghdad, Southern 

Iraq and Kuwait first as a company commander with 180 Soldiers and secondly as a battalion 

commander with 680 Soldiers. He has commanded as the battery, company, battalion and brigade 

levels with his last command assignment ending in 2015 as the commander of the llS'h Field Artillery 

Brigade. He currently serves as the Army Guard's Plans, Operations and Training Officer and holds the 

rank of Colonel. He is a graduate of the Army War College and holds a Masters of Science degree in 

Strategic Studies. 

Nesvik is married to wife Penny of 20 years and has three children Brittany, Rudy and Aspen. He enjoys 

hunting, fishing, boating and horseback riding. 
73 


26784.065

WYOMING GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT 

5400 Bishop Blvd. Cheyenne, VVY 82006 

Phone: (307) 777-4600 Fax: (307) 777-4699 

wgfd.wyo.gov 

Testimony of Brian R. Nesvik 

GOVERNOR 

MATIHEW H. MEAD 

DIRECTOR 

SCOTI TALBOTT 

COMMISSIONERS 

KEITH CULVER- Pres1dent 

MARK ANSELMI -Vice President 

GAY LYNN BYRD 

PATRICK CRANK 

PETER J. DUBE 

DAV1D RAEL 

MIKE SCHMID 

Chief Game Warden/Chief of the Wildlife Division 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

On the Hunting Heritage and Environmental Legacy Preservation for Wildlife Act, S. 1514 

July 19,2017 

Wyoming is home to a rich and diverse wildlife resource that is valued by an equally rich and 

diverse constituency. Much of the state's wildlife habitats remain in pristine condition and 

continue to provide wide open spaces and remote wild country for western iconic species like 

sage grouse, grizzly bears, moose, gray wolves, pronghorn antelope and elk. The management, 

abundance and quality of these resources are deeply intertwined and work symbiotically with 

multiple components of the State's economy including agriculture, tourism and mineral 

extraction. But more importantly, these resources directly influence the quality of life of 

Wyoming citizens and visitors from around the globe. 

Wyoming citizens take very seriously their trust responsibility for the management of all wildlife 

within its borders. State leaders have invested significant resources and inspired a conservation 

ethic in all of its endeavors. Wyomingites pride themselves on balancing conservation with 

economic development and maintaining a quality of life that reflects their most deeply held 

western values. One of these most important values is the reliance on state management of 

those wildlife occupying habitats within the boundaries of the stale. The North American Model 

of Wildlife Conservation is prominently understood and relied upon as good policy and guidance 

for sound wildlife management. 

I submit this testimony with the purpose of highlighting some of the key components of the 

Hunting Heritage and Environmental Legacy Preservation f(>r Wildlife Act (Act,) and how 

specitlc provisions eontrihute 1o Wyoming's conservation efforts. I offer a perspective from a 

stale wildlife manager who works closely with private landowners, federal land managers, 

diverse wildlife stakeholders and non-govcrmnental orgallilations. Additionally. my lhoughls 

rcllccitny wmk with colleagues ill olhet stale "ildlifc nmuagcJnenlageJides and I he Association 

uf Hsh awl Wildltle Ag<•tJdcs (A FW A) Key ~al!;; llf the Act iudmletl iu my leslituuny below 

ilH:lnde tollllniltiiL'Il{ to tlllJ1JJIUtod !.tttt iii<IJI.Igt:Hit'Hl uf tht guy \\'ulf 111 \V)'Ol!Hllg, illlpotltt!It 

t!i,r.:, fi,l ti.'li'.t-<1 '',llh,it t\-;.IHII< (~.•, :t!h,L :lttollliiHh-~r !IH" N1uth i\tllf-1 ic :Ill 'A't~ILIIItL f\,ti!,fl v(tii1 11t Al t 

(N:\ WCA), thr u•,r ol'f<-dt·ral tttillth l\tndinu li>r I he devflopmr-ul ot '.li<ll>ling '""~''"· thr tl'.t'. of 

thh hah11a1 pmltlf"r~hipts rmd h-ltd u::,t'd m fi!.hlllg tqnlpmcnt 

~---~------------ ---------------'"- ··cuiiH/•'ing Wildf!li So dn~ i'wph '' 
74 


26784.066

B Nesvik Testimony 

EPW-HELP ACT 

Section 8. Reissuance of Final Rule Regarding Gray Wolves in Wyoming 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was signed into law in 1973 and the Northern Rocky 

Mountain gray wolf subspecies was inunediately added to the list as an endangered species. In 

1978 the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed all wolves in the lower 48 

states under the ESA. Recovery planning in the northern Rocky Mountains began as early as the 

mid 1970s and by the 1980s several drafts of recovery plans were circulated for public conunent. 

In the early 1990s an Environmental Impact Statement was prepared in preparation for gray wolf 

releases in Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho. 

Gray wolves were reintroduced in Wyoming in 1995 and 1996 in Yellowstone National Park. 

The Recovery Plan identified clear and measurable recovery criteria which called for 30 

breeding pairs and 300 wolves between the three states of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming (with 

1 0 breeding pairs and 100 wolves in each state) and genetic interchange between the subpopulations in all three states. Those criteria were met in 2002 and in 2003 the USFWS began to 

prepare for delisting by issuing a notice of intent to delist. This was followed by years of 

litigation and disagreements between the states and the USFWS with challenges over state 

management plans and the establishment of Distinct Population Segments (DPS). Following a 

2008 court decision that dismissed a challenge to Wyoming's Wolf Management Plan, the 

USFWS determined gray wolves no longer needed the protections of the ESA and de listed the 

Northern Rocky Mountain population. 

Environmental litigants inunediately challenged the delisting rule and were successful in 

convincing a district court judge to enjoin the rule effectively stopping state management. The 

court ruled that the USFWS failed to show evidence of genetic interchange and also that it relied 

on Wyoming's flawed wolf management plan. The court concluded that Wyoming's wolf plan 

failed to commit to managing for at least 15 breeding pairs, despite the fact that the recovery plan 

required only 10. Additionally, the court found Wyoming's plan to manage wolves with dual 

legal status to be problematic. 

In 2009 the USFWS published a new rule establishing the Northern Rocky Mountain DPS and 

delisting that DPS with the exception of Wyoming. The USFWS stated that Wyoming's plan 

was not sufficient to ensure a recovered population. In 2010 a federal judge vacated the 2009 

mle on the basis that the USFWS could not delist only a portion of a DPS. The court also 

disagreed with the USFWS assertion that Wyoming's dual status plan was insufficient. 

In 2011 Congress intervened by initiating the USFWS 2009 de listing rule which reinstated state 

management of wolves in Montana and Idaho. This was challenged hy environmental litigants, 

but held as constitutional by the emu-Is. Wyoming entored into discussions with the llSFWS 

which culminated in an agreed upon path ti>rwanl tiH delisting in WyominR. The agreement 

e'tablislwd 10 breeding paits am! 1011 wolves as the miniumt11 tlueshold Wyolllillg would 

liHIHuge Jot uttlhtde uJ Yellu"t,iutlt' N,JtWHuJ P.uk awl tho Wunl Hive! llet,oll'aliul! fbo hhlll• 

dJ!,tJ di!Jt<td lo {110\'ldt- :1 "Jl~:>i\' 1 lOHt- \\:ht"-it lli:Hl:tgt!IH'Hl \\ioi!JJ t~tllOII!dl!t- \\llll( lllOVtliJNii {H 

ollu-,1 :ml' poplllalioih !o lu-.lp Gu llitalr.gf11f:IU· iHh·"'lfktllgr. 'Nyotuil!g .i.h.,o 1iglt.tod in llltill.lgtc lol 

a hnlfer Jhovt' this thn'.slwld !lnongh an adrlt'ndntn to thtJ-it \\·olf llldll~j}f.'rtlBill pLm /\t this ti11u:. 
75 


26784.067

B Nesvik Testimony 

EPW-HELP ACT 

the wolf population in Wyoming was at least 328 wolves with 27 breeding pairs. In September 

of 2012 the USFWS issued a final delisting rule and Wyoming took over management of its wolf 

population for the second time. 

All three states managed wolves well above the minimum recovery criteria. State fish and 

wildlife management agencies conducted biological monitoring to track population trends, assess 

genetic interchange and ensure that the populations remained far above minimum recovery 

levels. Additionally, all three states initiated well regulated hunting and managed wolves that 

caused damage to private property. Following 2 years of state management in Wyoming, the 

wolf population continued to thrive and remain far above recovery criteria. At the end of 2013, 

Wyoming's population was at least 306 wolves in 43 packs with 23 documented breeding pairs. 

Wolves were legally harvested in areas defined by both legal statuses and populations continued 

to thrive. 

In 2012 following delisting in Wyoming, environmental litigants filed suit again challenging the 

USFWS decision. On September 23, 2014 (7 days prior to the opening of the mmual hunting 

season) a Washington D.C. Federal District Court Judge vacated the USFWS rule delisting 

wolves in Wyoming. The court found no fault in the Wyoming's dual status management 

scheme or their genetic connectivity analysis. The court concluded the population was 

recovered, but that Wyoming's "nonbinding and unenforceable representations" to manage for a 

population above I 00 wolves and I 0 breeding pairs was not adequate. 11ris conclusion by the 

court regarding the enforceability of a commitment to manage above recovery criteria was the 

basis of the court's decision to vacate. 

The USFWS appealed this decision to the Washington, D.C. Circuit in 2015. In March of 2017 

the appellant court overturned the District Court decision which effectively returned state 

management to the state of Wyoming. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department has now 

reinitiated wolf management activities for the third time and the Wyoming Game and Fish 

Commission will consider new regulations today. 

Wyoming citizens have been extremely patient while the USFWS and the courts have wrestled 

with the status of a recovered population of wildlife within Wyoming's borders for over 15 

years. Their patience is waning quickly and the citizens of the state are ready for predictability 

and commitments that ensure state management into the future. 

Wyoming has contributed in spades to the recovery of this species and has managed gray wolvos 

using sound scientific principles at those times when the state had authority to do so. The state 

has made significant commitments to maintaining a healthy, viable and sustainable population of 

gmy wolves into the future both through its actions and the adoption of effective and responsible 

regulatory mechanisms. 

Tlte !iLitl• has deHIUH!:.tLJled skill aud culupelL•Ute i11 Ht.Hl~lgiHg gii.ty wohes iH ail ~ubpHve Hmtulet 

o\'t'l dw twu yt:<.U', '''ht'll tit~:- ;,L1tt lhtd llhllJ:IgtiW:Ui ttlliliotity Dwwg thtc pr-uud ftun1 ( kiubt:"l u1 

)01~ lo St~pktuln"t of :101,1_ \Vywnl!Jg':. wolf' pnpHidtiotJ llurvrd dJid tr.lli:Wlf.d f<il .thotf>: 

tr1 o\'rrv ( dtP.ria In t~H C ,,,olt popub1i1m~ ,wd tlw. mJmhfr of hrft"ding tMib 0( rnpyirtg sttltal~h-
76 


26784.068

B Nesvik Testimony 

EPW-HELP ACT 

habitats remained over 70% above the minimwn requirements of tbe ESA recovery plan criteria 

of 100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs. Management included biological monitoring, regulated 

hunting and livestock damage control actions. 

Wyoming citizens invested in wolf recovery then and now by compensating livestock producers 

who experienced significant losses to wolf depredation. This compensation program existed 

while wolves were listed and will continue into the foreseeable future. Last year Wyoming 

livestock producers were compensated $390,000 (increase of $80,000 from previous year) for 

cattle and sheep losses attributed to wolves. Wyoming is home to a diversity of wildlife species 

including many that cause damage to private property such as elk, mule deer, Canada geese, 

mountain lions, black bears, grizzly bears and antelope. Thirty seven percent of all damage 

compensation in the state last year was caused by gray wolves. 

During periods of time when the state had management authority, a primary management goal 

was directed at reducing human conflict and also the number wolves that were required to be 

removed in agency action. During the two years when Wyoming managed the population, there 

were an average of 35 wolves removed by the agency consequential to livestock damage. Last 

year federal managers removed at least 113 wolves in control actions in response to livestock 

depredation. 

The provisions of tbis bill protecting tbe USFWS delisting rule from judicial review provides the 

state witb needed predictability while still protecting and ensuring accountability for 

maintenance of a recovered wolf population. Regardless of the mechanism, any measure that 

ensures state management predictably into the future provides the most pragmatic and reasonable 

solution for both the gray wolf population and Wyoming's citizens. As currently written, tbis 

Act preserves the responsibility for the USFWS tore-list Wyoming's gray wolf population if it 

becomes threatened or endangered in the future. The ESA mandates USFWS evaluation of all 

potential emerging threats or changing science and requires specific actions if recovery is not 

maintained. This ESA requirement is not affected by the current draft of this bill. 

Also germane to the question of how to ensure a delisting rule tbat will persevere, and tbe 

relationship between that question and this bill, is the fact that in recent history delisting of a 

gray wolf population lasted only when directed by Congress. In Idaho and Montana where 

delisting was achieved through congressional action, state management remains intact today and 

the 5 year post-delisting monitoring requirement of the ESA has expired. Both states continue 

to provide effective adaptive management and a fully recovered gray wolf population despite the 

fi1ct there no longer exists any federal oversight other than the general provisions of the ESA that 

are relevm1! to all wildlife and all jurisdictions. There has never been a relisting of any species 

hased on a biological or scientific O:Jssessment that a population aguin hecame threatened after it 

had recovered and been delisled. 
77 


26784.069

B Nesvik Testimony 

EPW-HELP ACT 

Section 4. North American Wetlands Conservation Act 

The Wyoming Game & Fish Department (Department) stands to enjoy continued benefits to its 

fish and wildlife resources with the reauthorization of the North American Wetlands 

Conservation Act (NA WCA). This Act provides critical funding to support the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan. Through its implementing bodies, the joint ventures, this source 

of funding has been instrumental in our efforts to develop and implement an effective voluntary 

and incentive-based wetland conservation program in Wyoming. Our successes can largely be 

attributed to the availability of diverse funding sources and collaboration with the joint ventures 

supported under NA WCA. A summary of our conservation funding achievements is provided in 

the table at the end of this section. Recent research has also demonstrated sage-grouse 

distribution is strongly correlated with wetlands and mesic habitats (Donnelly eta!. 2016). This 

dependency further underscores the importance of wetlands in Wyoming, and the importance of 

NA WCA in helping us to proactively conserve them. Moreover, approximately one-third of all 

endangered species are wetland obligates. Further, wetland losses may lead to additional listings 

under the Endangered Species Act, which can have a significant impact on economic interests. 

Examples of NA WCA projects that provide meaningful benefit to Wyoming include: the Upper 

Green River and the Pathfinder Wetland Partnership NA WCA grant(s). 

The Nature Conservancy (TN C) compares the Upper Green River to the Serengeti in the plains 

of Africa, as it creates a "natural bottleneck where wildlife moves through ancient migratory 

pathways." The wetlands found here have been degraded over the years due to a variety of 

anthropogenic disturbances. The riparian wetlands and associated uplands surrounding the 

Upper Green River provide crucial habitat for migratory birds and other wildlife in the area. The 

$1 million NA WCA project, awarded to the Wyoming Game and Fish Department in 2013, 

protected and enhanced 16,440 acres of critical habitat in the Pacific Flyway, benefitting flora 

and fauna in an important part of the State and country. Partners were able to match federal 

dollars by nearly $3 million. 

The Pathfinder Wetland Partnership, located in southeast Wyoming was awarded $1 million in 

2016. This project will protect and restore wetlands within a geographic footprint roughly the 

size of!ndiana. 

Nationwide, the NA WCA supports wetland habitat conservation which has proven to be vital for 

migratory birds and other wildlife. Also noteworthy, NA WCA funded efforts to conserve and 

restore wetlands strengthens the economy. Each year, NA WCA-funded conservation and 

restoration projects directly support 7,500 jobs; employing and supporting landowners, 

contractors, biologists, engineers, manufacturers and suppliers. In addition, wetland habitats 

create oppmtunities J(Jr recreational activities such as hunting, Jishing, wildlife watching, and 

photography which generate billions of dollars in the ti.S. economy every }ear. Lastly, wetlands 

absorb water liotn floods and provide a variety of uatnral services tcsultiny in dean, plcutitiil 

water supplies. 
78 


26784.070

B Nesvik Testimony 

EPW-HELP ACT 

Wetland conservation funding accomplishments in Wyoming . (Grant awards do not include 

additional matching funds). 

Fund Source Dates Project Name Amount 

2008 Shared NRCS Biologist Year 1, Pinedale $25,000 

2009 Shared NRCS Biologist Year 2, Pinedale $15,000 

2009 TNC Pro· ect Readiness Assessment $15,000 

2010 Shared NRCS Biologist Year 3, Pinedale $15,000 

2010 WREP Pilot, Bear River $15,000 

2011 Albany/Carbon CO Range Specialist Year 1 $15,000 

Intermountain West Joint Venture 2011 Green R. Partnership Initiative $15,000 

Capacity Grants 2012 Albany/Carbon CO Range Specialist Y car 2 $15,000 

2012 Arapaho NWR Outreach Coord., Laramie $15,000 

2013 Albany/Carbon CO Range Specialist Year 3 $15,000 

2014 WY Wetland Conservation Specialist (Shared DUiNRCS) $15,000 -Year 1 

2014 Circle B Land & Cattle Co. Conservation Planning $15,000 

2016 WY Wetland Conservation Specialist (Shared DU/NRCS) $15,000 - Year2 

1995 Green River Wetlands* $109,162 

NA WCA Standard US Grants 2012 Upper Green River Conservation Easements & Wetland $1,000,000 Pro'ects * 

2016 Pathfinder Partnership * $1,000,000 

1996 Cottonwood Cr. Riparian Protection/Enhancement* $4,608 

1997 Wetland Creation/Beaver Introduction"" $24,000 

2001 Lower Green River Wetland Restoration* $49,072 NA WCA Small Grants 

2008 Wyoming North Platte Wetlands Initiative I "- $75,000 

2011 Purple Sage Ranch Oxbow Restoration* $50,000 

2016 Ocean l.ake Wetlands* $75,000 

WY f)ept Em, iron Qnal Section 119 TNC Study: Geospatial assessmemt on the dt:.tribution, 

Fund::. 2008-2010 nmdition, and vnlnetability of $164,444 

\\')oming's we!len<ls 

W1ldhfc IJohitat rru~t lund 2009-2012 Ill I 'I ahle MolllJtaiwSprlllgcr WilMA Water Study $40,000 
79 


26784.071

EPA 

Grants 

B Nesvik Testimony 

EPW-HELP ACT 

Wetland Program Development 

2011 

2012-2013 

2016 

2012 

Upper Green River Wetland Assessment $98,058 

Goshen & Laramie Plains Wetland Assessments $223,116 

of Wetland Restoration Program for 5225,000 Development 

Wyoming 

Ruby Pipeline Mitigation Funds through Cokevil1e NWR Habitat Protection $488,594 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 2012 North Cottonwood Ranch Easement 

(NFWF) J Mountain West 2013 Ocean Lake WHMA Wetland Enhancement 

Exxon/Mobile Settlement through NFWF 2011 Sublette CO Rimfire Ranch Project 

Wyoming Wildlife and Natural Resource 2013 Table Mountain I Wetland Restoration 

Trust Fund 2013 Table Mountain I1 Wetland Restoration 

TOTAL DIRECT FUNDING 

(excludes match funds) 

* Sources: 

https://www.fws.gov/birds/grants.php 

http://www.ducks.org/resourceslmedia/Conservation!NA WCA/statefactsheets/ 

https://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/grants/nawca/Smali/Wyoming.shtm 

http://www.ducks.org/conservation/gpr/wvoming/pathfinder-partnership-restoring-habitat 

ClTATON: 

$1,000,000 

$85,000 

$40,000 

$60,700 

$264,000 

$5,280,754 

Donnelly, J.P., D.E. Naugle, C.A. Hagen, and J.D. Maesta~. 2016. Public lands and private waters: scarce mesic resources 

structure land tenure and sage~grouse distributions. Ecosphere 7( 1 ):eO 1208.10.1 002/ccs2.1208. 

Section 2. Target Practice and Marksmanship 

Wyoming has been deeply engaged in enhancing recreational shooting opportunities for all of its 

citizens. Wyoming Governor Matt Mead is leading a significant effort now to bring recreational 

shooting opportunities to communities across the state through the "Wyoming 1 00''. The 

initiative is rooted in the idea that hunting, shooting and the firearms industry all have positive 

impacts on our country and state. 

The firearms and ammunition industry create. jobs~good paying jobs. Additionally, money 

spent on hunting, fishing nnd the recreational shooting sports directly contribute to funding 

wiJdlife conservation uud management. The Pittman~Robertsotl 'Nildlife Hes1oration Act (PR 

Aet) allocates about ll% of all spending on llreunn and ammunition to state vvildlife 

mauagemcnt agenvies ($371 million last yee~r). 

Huutiug awl tectentionnl ~•hoo!Jug spot!s also help lo cotHll'd jJL•ople wilh the ouhloots 

PtHliUJ.Htliuu l'J gtowtllg quickly tHlJ p.ultulL.uly Gy vruJut-11 HtuedilUHJl l,ltuutHig '·_I.Jlllt~; 

t~ug,t~;(t'lllt'll! by \\'IJIIU\11 lu;; iJH'It\htcd by 0\1t-·l GO~o itt 11H~ tt>,{ drt·<u..!r. Wu111U1 p,IJIH i{MiioH tfl 

lmn1mg lhh :~l::;o llJrlt""',t'.cd, dr.HO:ilil <~II}· i11 ',on H-. ~ut-,v; 
80 


26784.072

B Nesvik Testimony 

EPW-HELP ACT 

The provision of this bill that encourages federal partners to cooperate in the continued 

maintenance and development of shooting ranges on federal lands is in line with the state's goals 

with regards to recreational shooting activities. This bill enables and encourages states to 

purchase lands (through partnership or directly) for the purpose of building publicly accessible 

shooting ranges. Since access to ranges is the greatest impediment to first time participation, this 

bill has the potential to increase opportunity across the country. 

Current law allows states to use PR Act dollars to fund up to 75% of our Hunter Education and 

Safety Programs. This includes the construction, operation, and maintenance of shooting ranges 

that are used by the public. This bill increase opportunities and flexibility for state game and fish 

management agencies by allowing the use of PR Act to match up to 90% of the costs to acquire 

lands for public shooting ranges and allows states the flexibility to provide up to 10% nonfederal match. This enhanced funding flexibility will greatly benefit our Wyoming l 00 initiative 

and our hunting and recreational shooting sports citizens. 

Section 12. National Fish Habitat Conservation Through Partnerships 

The Department has been involved in fish habitat partnerships since the beginning of their 

existence. Former Wyoming Fisheries Chief Mike Stone was one of the original architects of the 

National Fish Habitat Action Plan in 2006. Wyoming, along with other state fish and wildlife 

management agencies, places significant value in working cooperatively to enhance habitats for 

fish and other wildlife and have a proven track record working with these types of initiatives. 

The Western Native Trout Initiative (WNTI) was started under the Western Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies before the existence of the National Fish Habitat Partnership (NFHAP), 

but was later included as a recognized partnership under the NFHAP umbrella. The Department 

has been involved with WNTI and Former Fisheries Chief Mike Stone was a founding organizer 

and one of the first steering committee members. The Department has helped with WNTI efforts 

including species assessments, project review and financial contributions. The Department along 

with 10 other western states provided funding for several years as a bridge to ensure continuation 

of WNTI when federal funding was uncertain. The partnership has provided $172,960 to entities 

working on cutthroat trout restoration and has enhanced Wyoming abilities to restore native fish. 

There are four fish habitat partnerships that geographically overlap Wyoming- Great Plains, 

Desert Fish, Reservoir Fish ami the Western Native Trout Initiative (WNTJ). ln ween! years, 

Department involvement has been primarily directed at the WNTl, however there has been some 

involvement with the Oreal Plains and Desert partnerships, primarily through meeting 

attendance. Over the past sevetal years, interest gradually waned when it hecame apparent that 

addiliorwl federal fimding, needed to levemge noH-ledcralmatch, wus uH!ikely. In addition, with 

limited hmdiug spwad actos& vast gcogtuphiL; areas uud divided utuoHg mc.my species, the 

likelthood ul ltutdioll Wyowiug project' was low I he I lep,Hlrueut !"" uuly upplied fo1 luwliog 

J~,, uJJt' pJujtTl flolll tht·!;l' \,Ulll'l .. t';, dJJd H•ttive,d d I,IIMH dlllUIIHI ',t'H'f<ll ye·~th ,tgo itoiU llil"' 

l'ldttt<" I ];,j, 1\llllict'.lnp fot kthit.>l ''"'"to llw C,t',pct Hoglou 
81 


26784.073

B Nesvik Testimony 

EPW-HELP ACT 

From a Wyoming, westem states and national perspectives, there are several potential positive 

outcomes with improved fimding for the initiative and associated partnerships. When adequately 

funded in the past, these partnerships have provided many states increased capacity to enhance 

and develop fish habitat as well as restore native fish, Wyoming's continued involvement with 

WNTI will only be enhanced with additional focus and resources directed at the NFHAP. 

Wyoming and other westem states participation and overall capacity to conduct this important 

work will only increase with additional funding allocated to these partnerships. 

Section 9. Modification of Definition of Sport Fishing Equipment Under Toxic 

Substances Control Act 

Lead has been used in fishing tackle for centuries because of its unique properties (weight, 

density, pliability, etc.), availability, and low cost to manufacture. The ability to use fishing 

tackle made of lead is extremely important to anglers and the sport fishing industry across the 

nation in order provide manufacturing flexibility, the ability to utilize other metals in production, 

provide reliable tackle, and manage costs. In the state of Wyoming, angling and revenue derived 

ti·om sport fishing have increased significantly over the past 5 years. Fishing is a common 

recreational activity and provides several million angler use days each year. 

TI1e impacts to fish and wildlife from lead ingestion are highly variable due to differences in 

species susceptibility, characteristics of the habitats, and exposure in the enviromnent. Because 

of these differences, most solutions require unique management approaches tailored to the 

specific circumstances and situation. State fish and wildlife agencies have the primary trust 

responsibilities for the management and protection of fish and wildlife resources and are best 

equipped to individually implement management solutions to address specific issues. 

State fish and wildlife agencies have the authority and responsibility to implement speci11c 

protections and incentives where population-level impacts to wildlife are substantiated. They 

also have the ability to utilize public education and voluntary or incentive-based programs where 

appropriate in lieu of regulation. These types of solutions are commonly used in wildlife 

management to address a wide range of problems, to fully leverage opportunities that exist to 

enhance wildlife management and are widely accepted by the public. 

State fish and wildlife agencies are best to provide focused efforts based in the newest and best 

available science to infonn management decisions. State wildlife managers also have a proven 

track record of effe.ctively bringing anglers, eonservationists, industry and a diverse set of 

stakeholders together to determine the most appropriate solutions to address fish and wildlife 

related challenges and opportunities. 

In two relatively reetmt petitions tcquesling the Lnvirontnental Protcelioll Agency han the usc of 

load iu ti;;hing equipment, the h:<leral govermrwut upprnptialcly du!etmined that thb type of 

uclioH \\'aS uol watt<Il!l.ed t JH Augw:.t 1, 2010, the Ceulet lUt Biolugiu.Jl1 h'!L•bity, Allwtit:all 

Hnd Coi!J,tH'<Htty. 1\l,J,unaltuti ul AvLw VHttHJ<.ULUt. P1ujttt t (iutpllt- ~uH.ll'nblJt Ftupluyt't11 , fut 

rti\'JIOf!lllcllld! R<<·,jllllhil<tlily l!kd" f>Hllloll II!Hkt lltn 'l'uvit Sul>'.Lllll h Coultol At I (!'SCi\! 

<) 
82 


26784.074

B Nesvik Testimony 

EPW-HELP ACT 

section 21 requesting that EPA prohibit under TSCA section 6(a) the manufacture, processing, 

and distribution in commerce of(!) lead bullets and shot; and (2) lead fishing gear. 

With respect to fishing gear, petitioners requested a nationwide, uniform ban on the manufacture, 

processing, and distribution in commerce of lead for use in all fishing gear, regardless of size, 

including sinkers, jigs and other tackle. On November 4, 2010, EPA denied this request because 

the petitioners had not demonstrated that the action requested was necessary to protect against an 

unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. In denying the petitioner's request, the 

EPA stated, "While lead tackle may still constitute the largest percentage of the fishing sinker 

market, over the last decade the availability of fishing sinkers made from other materials has 

expanded. New non-lead products have entered the market, and the market share of lead sinkers 

has decreased. With improvements in technology, changes in conswner preferences, state level 

restrictions, and increased market competition, the market for lead fishing sinkers is expected to 

continue to decrease while the market for substitutes such as limestone, steel, and tungsten 

fishing sinkers is expected to continue to increase." 

The EPA also cited the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies: 

"the exposure to certain migratory birds (primarily loons, and to a lesser extent, swans) and 

related impacts to populations of those birds is localized, and where impacts have been 

substantiated to be significant, state fish and wildlife agencies have acted to regulate the use of 

lead sinkers and jigs. In the northeast, five states have enacted restrictions (e.g., ban in certain 

bodies of water; ban on certain weights and sizes) on the use of lead fishing tackle where studies 

have identified lead toxicosis as a contributing factor to declining loon populations. Some states 

are also offering a fishing tackle exchange program (non-lead for lead products). States have thus 

demonstrated a responsible exercise of their authority to regulate or restrict lead fishing tackle 

under circwnstances of exposure where it contributes to decline in loon populations." 

On November 17, 201 I, EPA received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, the 

Loon Lake Loon Association, and Project Gutpile (petitioners). The petitioners cited section 21 

of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and requested EPA to initiate a rulemaking under 

section 6(a) of TSCA applicable to fishing tackle containing lead (e.g., fishing weights, sinkers, 

lures, jigs~ and/or other fishing tackle)~ of various sizes and uses that are ingested by wildlife~ 

resulting in lead exposure. After careful consideration, EPA denied the petition by letter dated 

February 14,2012. 

In denying the petitioners' request, EPA determined that the petitioners did not demonstrate that 

Federal action is necessmy based, in part, on the fltL't that the petitioners' supporting data indicate 

that the issue of wildlife exposure to fishing tackle containing lead has a regional or local 

geographic context coupled with the filet that the states where rbk of injury appears to he 

greatest (based on docmnented incidences) are largely the states that have taken action to address 

the risks posed by lead tishiug tackle. 

Jlw Hlu!;t e:>~Jt•m;h't• iHfuwuliuH lJlovidt•ti iH tlu.• petdw!l petld}W; lu the iHgeiJJull by 1uuw; ui 

fhhlllg h1rkle- tUIILiiHillg it.ttl ,Hid ituJh .:~h-•i; i1hli CUIUitlllJl ]oull~i Hit' k.JIO\~ill 10 iHg~•jt lNtJ uhjtoth 

HJO!t'· fir.qurttily tltdtt C1fhr.t :,tn·dr,:, nf Vl.':tkt hhrh, ~dmplh1 <u lfl;,.:., lht; l fl!lkd 8tittr.•, Fn1 lnoll~_ 

10 
83 


26784.075

B Nesvik Testimony 

EPW-IJELP ACT 

most of the documented cases of lead tackle ingestion cited in the petition are for the time period 

between 1987 and 2002 and are confined to northern states, all of which are located on or near 

the northern border of the United States. The USFWS report cited in the petition also indicates 

that loon populations are stable or increasing in all of these northern states where lead tackle 

ingestion by loons has been documented, with the exception of Washington. 

The EPA further comments that a number of states have established regulations that ban or 

restrict the use of lead tackle. In addition, a number of other states have created state education 

and/or fishing tackle exchange programs. In light of the emergence and expansion of these 

programs and other activities over the past decade coupled with a paucity of data on bird 

mortality attributable to lead tackle ingestion during this same timeframe, the petition does not 

suffice to establish that a Federal action as requested by the petitioners is necessary to adequately 

protect wildlife. The Department supports this provision which reinforces the states' authority to 

regulate the use of fishing tackle and the management of fish and wildlife. 

CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY 

The HELP for Wildlife Act contains multiple components that strongly support state fish and 

wildlife agencies' abilities to exercise their responsibility to manage their fish and wildlife 

resources in trust for their citizens. This act provides direction, focus and resources to enhance 

and build capacity for states to manage and improve fish, wildlife and their habitat resources 

across the country. Lastly and very importantly, this Act ensures fish, wildlife and their habitats 

will continue to be a national priority for our leaders and the citizens of our country. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and to share the perspectives of the Department. 

am happy to answer any questions. 

II 
84 


26784.076

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

Hearing entitled, "Legislative Hearing on S. 1514, the Hunting Heritage and Environmental 

Legacy Presermtion (HELP) for Wildlife Act" 

July 19,2017 

Questions for the Record for Brian Nesvik 

Chairman Barrasso: 

J. Mr. Nesvik, can you speak in more detail as to how the North American Wetlands 

Conservation Act has been used to enhance wildlife habitat in Wyoming? 

Wyoming contains proportionally less wetland habitat than most other states and the 

U.S. as a whole. Overall, wetlands and open water habitats cover approximately 2°/c, 

ofthe State's surface (Dah11990, Wyoming Joint Ventures Steering Committee 2010). 

However 90% of our wildlife species use wetlands and riparian habitats daily or 

seasonally throughout their life cycles and about 70% of Wyoming bird species arc 

considered wetland or riparian habitat obligates (Nieholoff2003). Given their limited 

distribution and the extent to which our State's wildlife depend on them, wetlands are 

inordinately valuable features on Wyoming's landscape. 

Multiple wetland conservation projects and initiatives in Wyoming have been funded 

directly and indirectly tbrougb the North American Wetlands Conservation Act 

(NA WCA). In recent years, Wyoming received two NA WCA standard U.S. Grants 

of $1 million each. These include Upper Green River Wetlands (2012), and 

Pathfinder Wetland Partnership (2017). The Upper Green River grant, along with 

match funding from other partners, was awarded to secure permanent conservation 

easements on 14,896 acres of wetlands and 22,734 ac1·es of upland habitat. In 

addition, 2,422 acres of riparian habitat were restored and enhanced at Seedskadee 

National Wildlife Refuge and over 28 acres of wetlands were restored or created on 

private lands. The riparian habitat restoration included reestablishment of a 

cottonwood tree gallery that had been impacted by altered now regimes below 

Fontenelle Dam. Riparian woodlands along the Green River are breeding habitat for 

the western yellow-billed cuckoo, ll species listed as threatened under the ESA. Upper 

Green was the first $1 million standard NA WCA grant awarded exclusively in the 

state of Wyoming. 

The Pathfinder Partnership standard NA WCA grant was awarded to complete 

several wetland restoration, enhancement, and protection projects in southeast 

Wyoming. Funded projects will restore and enhance more than 3,700 acres of 

wetland and riparian habitats. Most of the restoration pro.iects are located on areas 

open to public recreation, including 1,889 acres on lands owned by the Wyoming 

Game and Fish Commission, 661 acres on lands owned by the City of Laramie, and 

1,060 acres on Pathfinder National wildlife Refuge. Restoration and enhancements 

will be accomplished through improved water delivery and management, wetland 

infrastructure repair and rehabilitation, grazing management, invasive plant 
85 


26784.077

removal, and direct wetland restoration. An additional2,075 acres of riparian habitat 

along the Little Laramie River will be protected through conservation easements. 

The NA WCA small grants program provides up to $75,000 toward individual 

wetland conservation projects. Small grants are usually combined with funding from 

many other sources. Wyoming has received six small NA WCA grants totaling 

$277,680 since 1996. In all, 1,458 acres of habitat have been restored or enhanced 

through projects funded in part by the small grants program. Examples of wetland 

enhancements have included repair and rehabilitation of water control 

infrastructure, wetland creation, invasive species removal, and wetland restoration 

through beaver reintroduction. 

In total, Wyoming has received $2,386,842 in direct funding from NA WCA, which 

has been matched by an additional $6,698,800 in partner funding. These totals 

include an earlier Standard NA WCA grant of $109,162 awarded in 1995. Sources: 

h ttps://c3321 060.ssl.cfO.mckcd n.com/conscna tion/nawca/factshccts/20 1 7/wvoming. 

ill![ 

https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/grants/nawcaprojccts160908.pdf 

The North American Migratory Bird Joint Ventures grew out of the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan. Joint Ventures are voluntary, cooperative, regional 

partnerships of private industry and private landowners working alongside federal 

and state agencies, non-profit organizations, tribes, academia, and other partners. 

The NA WCA is a principal source of funding for joint ventures to accomplish their 

work, and a major reason for their continued existence. Joint ventures have been 

widely accepted as the model for collaborative conservation in the 21st century. They 

use state-of-the-art science to ensure that diverse habitat is available to sustain 

migratory bird populations for the benefit of those species, other wildlife, and the 

public. Joint ventures extend the benefits of NA WCA by leveraging additional 

funding from many sources, and by providing added science and field capacity. 

Since their inception joint ventures have evolved into an "all-bird" habitat 

conservation mission. For example, the Intermountian West Joint Venture (IWJV), 

which encompasses most of Wyoming, became involved with the Sage-Grouse 

Initiative (SGI) in 2010. This initiative is part of the "Working Lands for Wildlife" 

program led by the Natural Resource Conservation Service. By leveraging additional 

funding to support the SGI Strategic Watershed Action Team (SWAT), the IWJV has 

been instrumental at increasing science and field capacity to conserve sage-grouse 

habitats. The SGI-SWAT has placed 25+ natural resource specialist positions on the 

ground throughout 11 western states including Wyoming. These specialists work in 

an outreach capacity with landowners and agencies to address the following threats 

to sage-grouse: fire and invasive annual grasses; invasive conifers; exurban 

development; cultivation of grazing lands; mesic area loss and degradation; and fence 

collisions. The SGI has conserved or enhanced more than 4.4 million acres of sagegrouse habitat predominantly on private lands. Sources: 

https://iwjv.org/projcct/sage-grouse-initiativc-sgi 
86 


26784.078

http://www.sagegrouseinitiative.com/wpcontcntluploads/2015/02/NRCS SGI Report.pdf 

Dependable and adequate annual NA WCA appropriations are vital to ensure the 

Joint Ventures effectively continue their role in collaborative efforts to conserve the 

nation's most important habitats on private and public lands. Those efforts include 

conserving habitats of many species that might otherwise become threatened or 

endangered. 

References: 

Dahl, T.E., 1990, Wetlands Losses in the United States, 1780's to 1980's: Washington, 

D.C., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report to Congress, 13 pp. 

h ttps:/ /www. fws.gov /wellands/Docu ments/Wetlands-Losses-in-the-United-States1780s-to-1980s.pdf 

Nicholoff, S. H., compiler. 2003. Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan, Version 2.0. 

Wyoming Partners In Flight. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Lander, WY. 

https://www.nrc.gov/docsf!VIL0929/ML092940037.pdf 

Wyoming Joint Ventures Steering Committee. 2010. Wyoming Wetlands 

Conservation Strategy: Version 1.0. WY Game & Fish Dept., Cheyenne. 93pp + 

appendices. 

https:/ /wgfd.wvo.gov /Ha bitat!Habitat-Pia ns/Wvom ing-W ctlands-ConscrvationStratcg~, 

2. Mr. Nesvik, you state in your written testimony that ''[h]unting and recreational shooting 

sports also help to connect people with the outdoors." You also stated, "[s]ince access to 

ranges is the greatest impediment to first time participation, this bill has the potential to 

increase opportunity across the country.'' Can you explain in more detail how this bill 

will increase access for folks to the outdoors in Wyoming and other slates? 

For several reasons, the development of new shooting ranges has several challenges. 

Firstly, finding suitable lands with appropriate topography situated geographically 

in a location where necessary safety standards can be met is difficult in some 

communities. Secondly, their development can be expensive. Also challenging is 

finding lands where important environmental standards are able to be met. 

Some of the most suitable lands in our state are managed by the federal government. 

In particular, many BLM lands are situated in areas meet all of the suitability 

requirements. They are open and undeveloped with significant opportunity to 

provide safe and accessible shooting ranges. Some lands managed by the U.S. Forest 

Service and the Bureau of Reclamation have similar characteristics. 
87 


26784.079

This bill enhances opportunity for these types of federal lands to be developed for 

shooting ranges in two ways. Firstly, it encourages state, private and federal 

collaboration for the purposes of developing shooting ranges which effectively opens 

up many new opportunities that don't exist today for building shooting ranges on 

federal lands. Secondly, this bill provides additional flexibility for the use ofPittmanRobertson Wildlife Restoration Act funds in the development of new shooting ranges. 

Considering that SO% of Wyoming is public land, most of which is managed by the 

federal government, there are few Wyoming communities that would not benefit from 

new opportunities this bill would provide. 

3. Mr. Nesvik, in your written testimony you discussed that Wyoming is a part of the 

Western Native Trout Initiative, which is a recognized partnership under the National 

Fish Habitat Action plan. Can you discuss this initiative in more detail and how this bill 

will help that initiative? 

The Western Native Trout Initiative (WNTI) is a public-private Fish Habitat 

Partnership that works collaboratively across 12 western states to conserve, protect, 

restore and recover 21 native trout and char species. Formed in 2006 as an Initiative 

of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (W AFWA), WNTI is a 

collaborative, multi-state approach that requires the involvement of a wide range of 

partners from public agencies to private individuals to conservation-minded 

organizations and corporations. WNTI has been recognized by the National Fish 

Habitat Partnership as a Fish Habitat Partnership since 2008. Covering over 1.75 

million square miles of public and privately managed lands, WNTI and its partners 

combine science-based assessments with expert and local knowledge to establish .ioint 

priorities for native trout conservation at a landscape scale. WNTI provides a forum 

for partners to coordinate and invest their collective assets and capacity toward 

completing the highest-priority, native trout conservation efforts across the 

West. Proposed and led by local communities and resource agencies, these projects 

are funded and supported through WNTI's grant programs and in-kind 

contributions by our partners. 

WNTI has partnered with 12 western state fish and wildlife agencies, 5 federal natural 

resource agencies, numerous Native American Tribes, Trout Unlimited, Orvis, Bass 

Pro Shops, Simms Fishing products, land trusts, local enthusiasts, the Federation of 

Fly Fishers, the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, and numerous nonprofit 

partners to fund on-the-ground projects to benefit western native trout populations. 

Since its inception in 2006, the Western Native Trout Initiative has directed almost 

$5 million in federal National Fish Habitat Partnership fish habitat funds leveraged 

to $19 million public and private matching dollars for 123 priority native trout 

conservation projects. With the collaboration and coordination of its partners, WNTI 

has removed 75 barriers to fish passage, reconnected or improved 1,033 miles of 

native trout habitat, and placed 29 protective fish barriers to conserve important 

native trout conservation populations. 
88 


26784.080

In Wyoming, three native cutthroat trout occur: Bonneville cutthroat trout, 

Colorado River cutthroat trout, and Yellowstone cutthroat trout. Wyoming has 

been working cooperatively for many years with neighboring states (Colorado, 

Idaho, Montana and Utah in particular), that span the geographic range of these 

species. Cooperative plans and efforts include federal partners like the US Forest 

Service and US fish and Wildlife Service. Resulting conservation achievements 

have reduced threats and ensure persistence of these species. 

WNTI funds have been applied to five projects in Wyoming to date. Two of these, 

"Restoring Colorado River cutthroat trout in the LaBarge drainage, WY" and 

"North Fork Little Snake River barrier for Colorado River Cutthroat trout" are 

part of major efforts to secure pure and important conservation populations while 

reducing threats from non-native trout. Two additional project efforts focused on 

tracking fish use to understand where partners could work with water users to 

enhance fish passage or curtail fish lost to diversions. Finally, a database has been 

funded to store information about cutthroat trout distribution. 

While WNTI has certainly not been at the center of all native trout efforts and 

conservation actions would proceed without WNTI, the partnership serves as a 

catalyst for action and a thought leader for state-led fish habitat issues in the 

western U.S. WNTI's organizational structure and status as an initiative of 

W AFW A (Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies) provides integrated 

relationships with western state and federal fish and wildlife agencies and 

interagency species-specific Game Management Unit (GMU) Teams, as well as 

WNTI's regional working groups and interagency species Recovery Teams that 

assist in identifying priority pro,jects and data gaps. WNTI catalyzed and led efforts 

to complete the lirst-ever rangewide assessments for \Vestslope cutthroat trout, 

interior Redband trout and most recently Coastal cutthroat trout. WNTI also 

helped fund an interagency database for Colorado River cutthroat trout-a project 

that Wyoming Game and Fish participates in. The partnership also has an active 

and broad reaching Campaign for Western Native Trout that utilizes a web 

presence and effective social media to highlight the importance of native lish 

species, showcase habitat conservation work done by state and federal agencies, 

promote recreational lishing opportunities for these fish and increase lishing 

license sales. The partnership spurs discussion about regional priorities across the 

range of each species and, by providing funding for high quality and meaningful 

habitat restoration projects, it facilitates conservation. 

In 2016, WNTI made a strategic shift to focus its increasingly limited federal 

resources on a subset of six trout species for the next six years- including all three 

cutthroat trout species native to Wyoming. This prioritization focus also commits 

WNTI to working to bring additional resources from private sector partners to 

support on the ground conservation projects for the prioritized trout species. Any 

high quality projects proposed to benefit these species would stand a good chance 

of receiving funding. For example, plans arc being developed to reduce sediment 

from a road along Coal Creek, a tributary to the Thomas Fork in the Bear River 
89 


26784.081

drainage of western Wyoming and this may be a prospect for funding. Such an 

effort would entail general road and culvert work and result in local construction 

jobs. Scores of other similar efforts are at different stages of planning and 

development in Wyoming and across the west and could benefit from WNTI 

funding. 

There are extensive conservation needs for native trout across the west and 

collaboration is necessary through partnerships like WNTI to maximize 

conservation impacts and success. The proposed bill appears to offer at least level 

funding if not higher levels of project funding compared to historic levels. This will 

ensure the continuation of grants to benefit native trout conservation and 

potentially facilitate even more projects which would mean native trout 

conservation goals will be met sooner and more fully. This will mean that funds 

will be more readily available for projects like replacing narrow road culverts with 

fish-passage friendly crossings or building narrow, deep, shaded streams with 

habitat for all trout life stages. 
90 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much for your testimony, 

Brian. Appreciate your being here. 

Mr. Crow. 

STATEMENT OF JEFF CROW, DIRECTOR, 

ARKANSAS GAME AND FISH COMMISSION 

Mr. CROW. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Committee. I am Jeff Crow, Director of the Arkansas Game and 

Fish Commission. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent that my full statement be made part of the record. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

Mr. CROW. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify 

on behalf of the State of Arkansas supporting the Hunting Heritage and Environmental Legacy Preservation for Wildlife Act. 

Arkansas’ position as the nation’s top producing rice growing 

State, as well as its reputation as a premier waterfowl hunting destination in the country, gives us a unique perspective concerning 

proposed amendments to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Waterfowl 

conservation is one of the more successful examples of coordination 

between State and Federal authorities. 

It is this cooperation that has benefited wildlife in Arkansas and 

the people that enjoy that wildlife resource. Arkansas hunters consistently rank in the top three total duck harvest annually and 

lead the nation in mallard harvest each year. In a time when many 

States are experiencing declines in hunting participation, Arkansas 

duck hunter numbers have grown over the past decade, with approximately 100,000 individuals duck hunting in Arkansas each 

year, including Arkansas residents and visitors from all 50 States. 

Outdoors related recreation generates more than $4.9 million 

daily in Arkansas. Waterfowl hunting in Arkansas generated 

$236.7 million in retail sales, supported 4,706 jobs, and provided 

$29.1 million and $23.9 million in State/local and Federal tax revenue, respectively. These significant economic contributions cannot 

be overlooked and provide much needed economic stability for our 

State. 

Arkansas is the largest rice growing State, producing half the nation’s rice. Arkansas grows rice on more than 1.2 million acres each 

year from 40 counties. Arkansas rice contributes over $4 billion annually to the State’s economy and employs more than 25,000 Arkansans. 

It is no secret that rice fields and ducks go hand in hand, but 

the amount of food available for migrating and wintering waterfowl 

in rice fields has been on the decline for several decades. Earlier 

harvests, more efficient harvesting, and fall tillage result in little 

waste grain left when most ducks arrive in mid-winter. The practice of encouraging a second or ‘‘ratoon,’’ crop of rice after harvest 

offers a viable tactic to increase foraging value of rice fields to help 

waterfowl meet food and energy demands required for migration, 

winter survival, and breeding. Although traditionally practiced in 

the Louisiana and Texas Gulf Coast, ratooning rice is now possible 

thanks to the development of those new varieties of rice which mature to harvestable conditions much faster. However, a change in 

interpretation of the baiting laws relative to ratoon rice crops sevVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:11 Sep 27, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\26784.TXT SONYA
91 

eral years ago resulted in uncertainty about the legality of flooding 

and waterfowl hunting over ratoon rice crops. 

Currently, the Federal interpretation on whether a field is baited 

or not includes a variety of possibilities which leads to confusion 

by both landowners/producers and hunters. Some criteria which are 

increasingly difficult to determine from a landowner perspective 

and measure from a law enforcement standpoint include how the 

crop plants got there, what has been done to the crop, and what 

will happen to it in the future. 

The proposed bill affords the opportunity for enhanced Statelevel coordination between the USDA Cooperative Extension Service State offices and State fish and wildlife agencies when defining 

normal agricultural practices based on crop type and conditions. It 

is an activity that must occur at the State level to be implemented 

correctly and successfully. 

This bill would codify clearer definitions around issues of baiting, 

afford the opportunity for waterfowl hunting over ratoon rice and 

other crops that have not been manipulated, and allow conservation partners to educate producers and hunters about the value of 

agriculture to wintering waterfowl without compromising the legal 

standing of those producers and hunters. 

The bill language reauthorizing the North American Wetlands Conservation Act at $50 million for the next 4 years is also a welcome addition. Competition for limited NAWCA funds has increased in recent years, and this proposed appropriation level 

would provide valuable, consistent funding for migratory bird habitat conservation in coming years. NAWCA is a long standing program that has been extremely effective in leveraging non-Federal 

funds to protect, restore, enhance, and manage wetland habitat for 

migratory birds and other wildlife. 

Mr. Chairman, once again, in closing, I would like to say I appreciate the opportunity to testify in support of this legislation. I believe the changes proposed are essential to the increased participation in hunting and shooting sports, which in turn provides the 

mechanism for increased conservation of our nation’s wildlife resources. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have 

about my testimony today and look forward to continuing our work 

together to preserve our natural resources for the next generation. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Crow follows:] 

92 


26784.082

Jeff Crow 

Director 

Arkansas Game and Fish Commission 

Mr. Crow is the Director of the Arkansas Game and Fish 

Commission (AGFC). He began his AGFC career in 1986 as a 

Wildlife Officer serving Jackson and Hot Spring counties. 

In 1996 Mr. Crow accepted a position with the Arkansas State Police where he had assignments 

in highway patrol, criminal investigations, training, and SWAT. He retired from law enforcement 

in2011. 

In 2012 Mr. Crow returned to the AGFC as Colonel of the agency's Enforcement Division. In 

2013, he was promoted to Deputy Director and in 2014 became the agency's Chief of Staff. 

Mr. Crow also served 25 years on active duty and as a member of the reserves in the United 

States Marine Corps. A combat veteran of Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom 

II, he retired in 2007 at the rank of Sergeant Major. 

Mr. Crow holds an associate's degree in criminal justice from National Park College, a 

bachelor's degree in organizational management from John Brown University, and a master's 

degree in public administration from Arkansas State University. 
93 


26784.083

STATEMENT OF JEFF CROW, DIRECTOR OF THE ARKANSAS GAME AND FISH 

COMMISSION 

TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

CONCERNING THE HUNTING HERITAGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL LEGACY 

PRESERVATION FOR WILDLIFE ACT 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am Jeff Crow, Director of the Arkansas Game and 

Fish Commission. Before becoming director in 2016, I was the agency's chief of staff, 

overseeing day-to-day operations for the Commission, for two years. Prior to these roles at the 

administrative level of the agency, I served the AGFC as the chief of law enforcement, 

sometimes working with Federal enforcement agents concerning our bedrock laws and 

regulations that help manage our migratory waterfowl. 

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify on behalf of the State of Arkansas, 

supporting the Hunting Heritage and Environmental Legacy Preservation for Wildlife Act, 

including reauthorization of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, the promotion of 

building public shooting ranges, the clarification of migratory bird-baiting regulations to 

coincide with USDA and state agricultural best practices, and many other important initiatives 

for the continued conservation of our nation's fish and wildlife. 

To Reduce Landowner Liability for Baiting Migratory Game-birds if they Adhere to 

USDA and State Agricultural Best Practices 

Arkansas' position as the nation's top-producing rice-growing state as well as its reputation as 

the premiere waterfowl-hunting destination in the country gives us a unique perspective 

concerning proposed amendments to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

Waterfowl conservation is one of the more successful examples of coordination between state 

and federal authorities. It is this cooperation that has benefitted wildlife in Arkansas and the 

people who enjoy that wildlife resource. Arkansas hunters consistently rank in the top three for 

total duck harvest and lead the nation in mallard harvest each year. In a time when many states 

are experiencing declines in hunting participation, Arkansas duck hunter numbers have grown 

over the past decade, with approximately I 00,000 individuals duck hunting in Arkansas each 

year, including Arkansas resident hunters and guests from all 50 states. 

Outdoors-related recreation generates more than $4.9 million a day in Arkansas. According to 

the 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation compiled by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Census Bureau, hunters, anglers and wildlife 

watchers spent more than $1.8 billion on wildlife recreation in Arkansas in 2011. Waterfowl 

hunting in Arkansas generated $236.7 million in retail sales, supported 4, 706 jobs and provided 

$29.1 million and $23.9 million in state/local and federal tax revenue. These significant 
94 


26784.084

economic contributions cannot be overlooked and provide much needed economic stability for 

our state. 

Arkansas is the nation's largest rice-growing state, producing half the nation's rice and nearly 

nine billion pounds annually. Arkansas grows rice on more than 1.2 million acres each year from 

40 counties, mainly in eastern Arkansas counties from Louisiana to Missouri. Arkansas rice 

contributes over $4 billion annually to the state's economy and employs more than 25,000 

Arkansans. 

It's no secret that rice fields and ducks go hand-in-hand, but the amount of food available for 

migrating and wintering waterfowl in rice fields has been on the decline for several decades. 

Earlier harvests, more efficient harvesting and fall tillage result in little waste grain left when 

most ducks arrive in mid-winter. The practice of encouraging growth of a second, or "ratoon", 

crop of rice after harvest offers a viable tactic to increase foraging value of rice fields to help 

waterfowl meet food and energy demands required for migration, winter survival and successful 

breeding. Although traditionally practiced in the Louisiana and Texas Gulf Coast, ratooning rice 

is now possible thanks to the development of those new varieties of rice which mature to 

harvestable conditions much faster. However, a change in interpretation of baiting laws relative 

to ratoon rice crops several years ago resulted in uncertainty about the legality of flooding and 

waterfowl hunting over ratoon rice crops. 

Currently, the federal interpretation on whether a field is baited or not includes a variety of 

possibilities which leads to confusion by both landowners/producers and hunters. Some of the 

criteria which are increasingly difficult to determine from a landowner perspective and measure 

from an enforcement standpoint include: 

• how the crop plants got there (i.e., whether it was planted or it volunteered to regrow 

from seeds of an earlier planting); 

• what has been done to the crop (i.e., whether it has been tended and prepared for harvest 

and sale, has already been harvested, or plowed under, or whether it is abandoned); 

• what will happen to it in the future (i.e., whether it is already under a blanket of snow, 

and whether there is still a possibility of harvest). 

The proposed bill affords the opportunity for enhanced state-level coordination between the 

USDA Cooperative Extension Service state offices and state fish and wildlife agencies when 

defining normal agricultural practices based on crop type and conditions. It is in an activity that 

must occur at the state level to be implemented correctly and successfully. 

While I have described the unfortunate situations that sometimes occur with rice, there other 

difficult situations that could occur with com or soybean production. In recent years, flooding 

from tropical storms have damaged these crops and producers have been required to "destroy" 

their crops by mechanical manipulation to receive their insurance payments. The language in this 

bill seeks to remedy this by reducing unintended liability for producers when dealing with crop 

insurance settlement issues following crop losses due to natural disaster. The bill language 

indicates that maintaining flooding could be a first option for "destroying" crops lost due to 

natural disaster, if deemed acceptable by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. This option 
95 


26784.085

could provide important resources for wintering waterfowl, but cooperation is needed to ensure 

this practice does not expand beyond its intended scope. Thus, state agencies will continue to 

work with US Fish and Wildlife Service, Risk Management Agency, producers, and groups like 

Ducks Unlimited to ensure a positive outcome for producers, waterfowl, and our sportsmen. This 

bill would codify clearer definitions around the issue of baiting, afford the opportunity for 

waterfowl hunting over ratoon rice and other crops that have not been manipulated and allow 

conservation partners to educate producers and hunters about the value of agriculture to 

wintering waterfowl without compromising the legal standing of those producers and hunters. 

To Reauthorize the North American Wetlands Conservation Act 

The bill language reauthorizing the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NA WCA) at 

$50 million for the next four years is a welcome addition. Competition for limited NA WCA 

funds has increased in recent years, and this proposed appropriation level would provide 

valuable, consistent funding for migratory bird habitat conservation in coming years. NA WCA is 

a long-standing program that has been extremely effective in leveraging non-federal funds to 

protect, restore, enhance and manage wetland habitat for migratory birds and other wildlife. 

Unanimously reauthorized by Congress in 2006, NA WCA provides federal cost-share funding to 

support the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. NA WCA is a landmark investment 

which, for over 20 years, has produced a number of economic and environmental benefits while 

conserving America's fish and wildlife resources. It is a private landowner-friendly, nonregulatory and incentive-based program. Every federal dollar granted under NA WCA has 

typically been tripled by partners like AGFC and Ducks Unlimited who invest their own capital 

and resources at the state and local levels. NA WCA projects have been implemented all over 

North America, present in all 50 states. NA WCA is invaluable to the conservation of continental 

wetlands which play a vital role in maintaining the quality of our environment. In addition to 

protecting wildlife habitat and improving water quality, this program creates jobs in the private 

sector through creation of water management infrastructure and by increasing tourism through 

enhanced outdoor recreation opportunities. 

Thousands of acres of waterfowl habitat in Arkansas have been conserved through NA WCA and 

enjoyed by waterfowl and hunters. I made mention of our abundant rice fields that provide food 

for ducks. We are also blessed to have some of the last and best bottomland hardwood forests in 

the country. When these forests are flooded by the White and Cache Rivers, they provide habitat 

for over a million mallards. NA WCA has ensured that these forested wetlands remain in good 

condition. NA WCA has also restored new forests for the next generation of sportsmen and 

waterfowl enthusiasts. Projects like these can only occur through strengthening funding for this 

important program. 

To Promote the Building and Expansion of Public Target Ranges 

The plan "to facilitate the construction and expansion of public target ranges" is an exciting 

addition for an often overlooked group of sportsmen and sportswomen who support conservation 
96 


26784.086

funding through the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act. The spending of recreational 

target shooters toward Pittman-Robertson-eligible purchases (firearms and ammunition) is nearly 

equal to that of hunters. According to a 2011 report by Southwick Associates, recreational 

shooters spent $8.2 billion on Pittman-Robertson-eligible purchases (firearms and ammunition), 

while hunters spent $8.4 billion. Generally, there is a growing interest in recreational target 

shooting, and state fish and wildlife agencies need flexibility that is provided in this legislation to 

meet the changing needs of our constituents and the expectations of the public. 

The purpose of the act correlates with the AGFC's plan to construct shooting ranges in three of 

the most populated regions in Arkansas that currently do not have a public shooting range 

(Northeast Arkansas, Northwest Arkansas and the River Valley Region in Western Arkansas). 

Planned ranges would meet all criteria for the definitions set forth in the bill and would support 

not only current sportsmen and sportswomen, but also support the AGFC's increasingly popular 

youth shooting sports and archery programs, which expose tens of thousands of teenagers to 

proper firearms and archery safety and future enjoyment of the shooting sports. The increase 

ofthe federal match from 75 to 90 percent increases the ability for AGFC to provide the required 

non-federal match, and reduces the fiscal burden on a grant recipient (recent projects such as 

Warren, Batesville, and currently Jonesboro would benefit from this match). 

Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman, once again, I appreciate the opportunity to testifY in support of this legislation. I 

believe the changes proposed are essential to the increased participation in hunting and shooting 

sports, which in tum provides the mechanism for increased conservation of our nation's wildlife 

resources. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have about my testimony today and 

look forward to continuing our work together to preserve our natural resources for the next 

generation. 
97 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Crow, for 

traveling here from Arkansas and for your testimony today. 

I would like to next turn to Mr. Dale Hall, who is the CEO of 

Ducks Unlimited and the former Director of the United States Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

Mr. Hall, thanks for joining us today. 

STATEMENT OF DALE HALL, CEO, DUCKS UNLIMITED, 

AND FORMER DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Mr. HALL. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. Thank you very much for having me here. 

Mr. Chairman I request that my written comments be submitted 

to the record in their entirety. 

Senator BARRASSO. And they certainly will. Thank you. 

Mr. HALL. Again, thank you for allowing me to be here to speak 

on behalf of Ducks Unlimited in support of the HELP Act. This bill 

is very important and has a lot of components in it that are important to all of us in the conservation community. 

NAWCA, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, is certainly a big part of that, and it is near and dear to Ducks 

Unlimited’s heart because we work a great deal in restoring those 

wetlands out there. Over our 80-year history across the continent, 

we have now restored over 14 million acres of wetlands, and a lot 

of those acres have been restored with the help of NAWCA funding 

in the last 30 years. It has been a real pleasure to work with this 

Committee in the past, and hopefully we are able to provide the information necessary to get this bill across the finish line. 

NAWCA has accomplished success in all 50 States. The program 

has conserved more than 33.4 million acres in North America 

alone. NAWCA has conserved valuable wetlands across the continent, but we are still in need of additional work. Wetlands are 

still under threat across the continent, and while we have done a 

good job, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has documented that 

wetland loss has dramatically accelerated by 140 percent since 

2004. This non-regulatory approach to working with the landowners to get the job done is, we believe, the most effective way 

to help conserve those wetlands and move things forward. 

NAWCA catalyzes conservation efforts and resource managers 

and partners from many sectors to use a variety of voluntary strategies to restore enhanced degraded habitat, as well as protect some 

of the remaining high quality habitat. Wildlife related recreation 

generates more than $100 billion in our economy each year, and we 

believe the ripple effect of that would take it up into several hundred billion dollars. 

In the Chairman’s State of Wyoming, 140,116 hunters created 

nearly 5,000 jobs, while 302,758 anglers generated more than $476 

million in retail sales. Eight NAWCA projects have been completed 

in Wyoming since the program’s inception, and these projects have 

conserved 45,000 acres of critical wetland and wildlife habitat. 

The Ranking Member’s home State of Delaware currently has 10 

NAWCA projects completed or underway, and these projects have 

conserved 10,800 acres of wetlands important to the State residents. Taking $6.6 million of Federal funding leveraged another 

98 

$412 million in private and non-Federal funding in order to do 

these projects. 

These results are not unique and have been seen all over the 

country, with more than 5,600 NAWCA partners. I want to emphasize that again. More than 5,600 NAWCA partners working together in a volunteer fashion to get this work done. 

Our average at Ducks Unlimited in getting the matching funds— 

the law requires one to one match—our history is that we get an 

average of $3.2 of non-Federal funding for every $1 of Federal 

funding. That is a pretty significant payoff for the American taxpayer. 

I would also like to emphasize the importance in this bill of the 

reauthorization of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. I 

have been, through my career, around to see NFWF grow and do 

all the wonderful things that it has been able to do, and we certainly support the reauthorization of the National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation. 

The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act, while only $6.5 million, is critical to working with the international community in getting things done. 

Finally, my colleague here will speak to the Chesapeake Bay, but 

it is a very important area. Like the Gulf Coast, where more than 

a million acres have been lost and partners are working together 

to try to restore those wetlands, the Chesapeake Bay is another 

true jewel for the American people. 

Again, I look forward to working with this Committee and answering any questions that I can to help get this bill approved. It 

is a good bill, it is a bipartisan bill, and it is a bill that is very 

much needed, so thank you very much for allowing me to be here. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:] 

99 


26784.087

Dale Hall 

CEO 

Ducks Unlimited 

Dale Hall has been the CEO of Ducks Unlimited since 20 I 0. Prior to 

joining DU, Hall was the director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service from 2005 to 2009. 

During Hall's 31-year career with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

he served in numerous roles local, regional and national levels. As director, he was responsible for 

approximately 7,500 USFWS employees working out of the national headquarters and nine regional 

offices. Before joining the USFWS in 1978, Hall spent four years in the U.S. Air Force, where overseas 

assignments took him to Italy and the Philippines, and a year managing a commercial aquaculture 

operation in Mississippi. 

Hall holds a master's degree in fisheries science and is the author of numerous published papers on 

wetlands, fisheries and ecology. He has also taught courses on wetlands identification and delineation. A 

native of Kentucky, Hall is a lifelong outdoors enthusiast who enjoys hunting and fishing. 
100 


26784.088

STATEMENT OF H. DALE HALL, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

DUCKS UNLIMITED, INC. 

BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE 

CONCERNING: 

S. 1514, HUNTING HERITAGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL LEGACY PRESERVATION 

(HELP) FOR WILDLIFE ACT 

July 19,2017 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Dale Hall and I am the chief executive 

officer for Ducks Unlimited. Before assuming that role in 2010, I worked for the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service for 31 years, including serving as its director from 2005 to 2009. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of Ducks Unlimited regarding the Hunting 

Heritage and Environmental Legacy Preservation (HELP) for Wildlife Act, which includes the 

reauthorization of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NA WCA) and several other 

important provisions designed to improve the management offish and wildlife habitat, and 

outdoor recreation including hunting and fishing. NA WCA has been an important and highly 

effective program that has protected and conserved migratory bird populations for nearly 30 

years, and Ducks Unlimited fully supports the passage of these provisions within the bill. This 

program is a model of how the federal government can and should work with states and private 

partners. 

Ducks Unlimited has been a strong proponent of waterfowl conservation for more than 80 years. 

Our mission is to conserve, restore, and manage wetlands and associated habitats for North 

America's waterfowl, and for the vast economic and natural infrastructure benefits these 

resources provide to other wildlife and the people who enjoy and value them. We work in 

Canada, Mexico, and every state in the United States. Since 1937, Ducks Unlimited has 

conserved more than 14 million acres of habitat important to waterfowl and other wildlife. 

With more than one million members and supporters, Ducks Unlimited represents a significant 

conservation voice for birds and the landscapes that support them. Our work is science-based. 

We use reliable information from the disciplines of wetland ecology, waterfowl biology, 

hydrology, civil engineering, and landscape ecology to develop, implement and adapt waterfowl 

and wetland conservation actions. We collaborate with agencies, organizations, fanners and 

ranchers in the most important landscapes used throughout migratory birds' lifecycles, including 

breeding, migration and wintering habitats. These partnerships are essential for conservation, and 

we support legislation and policy that advances wetland conservation and related economic, 

natural infrastructure, wildlife and fish populations on behalf of Americans. 

To Reauthorize the North American Wetlands Conservation Act 

Ducks Unlimited is pleased to testify before the full U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and 

Public Works on the reauthorization ofNAWCA. Since enactment, NAWCA has played an 
101 


26784.089

invaluable role in North American wetlands conservation by stimulating local and regional 

partnerships targeted for conservation of wetlands, wetland-dependent fish and wildlife, and the 

benefits provided to Americans who enjoy clean water, reduced flooding, and a host of 

recreational opportunities such as hunting, fishing and trapping related to this critical part of the 

nation's natural infrastructure. NA WCA continues to be a popular and productive program for 

thousands of partners and produces results of substantial value to Americans. We commend 

Congress for its foresight in creating NA WCA in 1989, and for repeatedly ensuring its long-term 

success. 

Since enactment, NA WCA has accomplished measurable success in all 50 states. The creation of 

the program more than 28 years ago was a bipartisan effort, and NA WCA continues to attract 

strong support in Congress and from administrations of both parties. This program has conserved 

more than 33.4 million acres across North America. Reauthorization of NA WCA is critical to 

build on this success and ensure the health of wetlands that provide clean water, reduce flooding, 

provide jobs through the recreational economy, and protect important energy infrastructure 

especially in coastal regions. These important benefits to Americans are in addition to benefits to 

our nation's fish and wildlife resources. While often overlooked, the economic and ecological 

value of wetlands cannot be overstated, nor can the role of NA WCA in their conservation. 

NAWCA drives broad and diverse partnerships that are the source of more than S3 of nonfederal leveraged match for each federal dollar invested. NA WCA is essential to wetland 

conservation and the related economic and natural capital outcomes so important to Americans. 

Despite the ongoing success ofNAWCA, for a variety of complex reasons, wetlands in the 

United States are disappearing. The lower 48 states have lost approximately 53 percent of their 

original wetlands. As just one example, wetlands accounted for approximately 2 million acres 

(3.2 percent) in Wyoming circa the 1780s. By the 1980s, Wyoming lost .75 million acres or 

approximately 38 percent of its wetlands primarily due to agricultural and urban development. 

Recent trend information indicates that wetland acreage in Wyoming has continued to decrease 

over the past 30 years. And while NA WCA has conserved valuable and important wetlands, the 

most recent nationwide study conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service documented that 

wetland loss has dramatically accelerated by 140 percent since 2004, which includes a loss of 

95% of wetlands in California alone. This is an alarming trend that, if it continues, weakens our 

natural infrastructure, our ability to buffer storm damages, and will contribute to poor water 

quality, increased flooding, and reduced water quantity. Wetland loss also places coastal oil and 

gas infrastructure and coastal cities at risk of greater impacts from storms, and reduces the 

number of jobs in the recreational sector of our economy (hunting, fishing, birding, ceo-tourism, 

etc.). 

NA WCA catalyzes conservation efforts by resource managers and partners from many sectors to 

use a variety of voluntary strategies to restore and enhance degraded habitat as well as protect 

some of the remaining high-quality habitat. The wetland conservation completed on both public 

and private lands, as noted, provides significant economic benefits and recreational opportunities 

for landowners and Americans that visit public outdoor recreational lands. Wildlife-related 

recreation generates more than $100 billion of economic output annually. In many cases, this 

economic activity is vital to rural communities and the incomes of rural Americans. The 

restoration and protection of wetlands and associated habitats made possible by NA WCA have 
102 


26784.090

many benefits for both people and wildlife. Scientific studies clearly demonstrate that wetlands 

not only act as filters to clean water but also recharge groundwater supplies. Wetlands also trap 

and hold precipitation and runoff: and act as buffers in coastal regions, lessening the damage 

from floods and hurricanes. 

Some examples of the importance ofNAWCA include accomplishments in Alaska, where 14 

NAWCA projects have been completed or are under way. More than 65,000 acres of wetland 

and upland habitat have been conserved using these dollars, of which $4.7 million came from the 

government, dollars that leveraged $14.5 million from diverse partnerships often including state, 

corporate, foundation, and private partners. 

In the Chairman's state of Wyoming, the economic benefits were also significant: 140,116 

hunters created nearly 5,000 jobs, while 302,758 anglers generated more than $476 million in 

retail sales. Eight NA WCA projects have been completed in Wyoming since the program's 

inception, and these projects have conserved 45,474 acres of critical wetlands and wildlife 

habitat. NA WCA funding of $1,386,842 in Wyoming has stimulated partner contributions of 

$4,098,836. An example of the benefits of these projects was the protection of Ocean Lake 

Wetlands through a $75,000 grant awarded to improve hydrology of the wetlands, create 

appropriate plant community composition and structure, expand the area and diversity of wetland 

types on the property, and improve water quality associated with the wetlands on the tract. This 

project provides important habitat to a variety of migratory birds, including several species of 

waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds and many other wetland-dependent species. 

The wetlands also provide water quality and quantity conservation benefits in the state's semiarid landscape and climate. 

NA WCA's success is not confined only to large states. For example, the Ranking Member's 

home state of Delaware currently has I 0 NA WCA projects completed or under way. These 

projects have conserved I 0,803 acres of wetlands important to the state's residents. NA WCA 

funding of more than $6.6 million there has leveraged partner contributions of more than $12 

million. 

These results are not unique and have been replicated all over the country with the help of more 

than 5,600 NA WCA partners. More than 2,644 voluntary habitat conservation projects have been 

delivered in North America, providing substantial economic and natural capital benefits to 

Americans. Partners include fish and wildlife agencies from all 50 states, hundreds of private 

landowners, several hundred conservation organizations, small businesses, corporations, Native 

American tribes and local governments. 

In addition to being one of the federal government's most effective conservation programs, 

NA WCA is a model of fiscal responsibility, providing an excellent return on a relatively modest 

federal investment. The law requires every federal dollar put into the program to be matched by 

at least $1 of non-federal money. On average, however, non-federal partner matches have 

averaged $3.20 for every $1 of federal money. The partner investment in NAWCA totals more 

than $4 billion during the life of the program. 
103 


26784.091

U ndcniably, the benefits of NA WCA extend beyond waterfowl. Wetlands provide a home to 

more than 900 wildlife species at some point during the year. As Congress intended, the criteria 

for NA WCA projects include waterfowl as well as other wetland-associated migratory birds and 

threatened and endangered species. Under this guidance, NAWCA projects benefit an array of 

species, including commercially and recreationally important fish such as salmon. 

NA WCA is vital for cooperative efforts to address landscape-level habitat challenges in key 

areas for waterfowl and other migratory birds, including inland wetland systems such as the 

Prairie Pothole Region of the Great Plains, the Lower Mississippi River Valley, and iconic 

coastal areas such as the Gulf Coast, Great Lakes, Pacific Northwest and Chesapeake Bay. 

What began in 1989 as a way to implement the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, 

the agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico on managing waterfowl 

populations, has developed into a program with widespread support and success. NA WCA has 

stimulated hundreds of conservation partnerships that would not otherwise exist. The result is 

millions of acres of conserved wetlands and associated uplands that benefit our nation's water 

quality and supply, wildlife and fish populations, economy and ultimately- our people. 

NA WCA is the most effective voluntary wetland restoration program in history. Ducks 

Unlimited and our more than one million members and supporters strongly support this 

legislation, and we urge the Congress to reauthorize it to continue NA WCA's benefits to all 

Americans. 

Baiting of Migratory Game Birds 

Ducks Unlimited supports an approach that would, in effect, allow normal agricultural practices 

to be determined through the concurrence of the state cooperative extension service and the state 

fish and wildlife agency, in consultation with the U.S. Department of the Interior. This approach 

ensures appropriate state-level conversations occur regarding agricultural practices (based on the 

crop type and conditions) and guarantees that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service perspectives are 

considered. The process will encourage producers to grow ratoon rice (second crop rice) in the 

Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MA V) and along the Gulf Coast to improve winter waterfowl 

foraging habitat. And it should provide clarity to producers, landowners, hunters and law 

enforcement officials regarding hunting waterfowl over second-growth rice. 

Gulf Coast Joint Venture (GCJV) conservation planning established population-based waterfowl 

habitat goals that depend on the presence of rice agriculture-in particular ratoon rice-on the 

landscape. Within rice-growing areas of coastal Louisiana, GCJV conservation planning assumes 

that rice agricultural habitat will support 41 percent of its midwinter waterfowl population 

objective. Across the border in Texas, 63 percent of the total midwinter population objective is 

assumed to rely on rice agricultural habitats. Stated another way, GCJV plans call for 

approximately 4.45 million ducks and geese wintering along the Gulf Coast to depend primarily 

on rice agricultural habitats, of which ratoon (harvested or unharvested) provides the most 

energy because of the timing of seed production and harvest. Flooded rice fields, in fact, provide 

an estimated 44 percent of food energy available to wintering waterfowl along the Gulf Coast, 

with coastal marsh responsible for the remainder. Notably, rice agriculture is equally important 
104 


26784.092

to meeting conservation plan objectives for migratory birds in the Central Valley of California 

and in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley region encompassing parts of Missouri, Arkansas, 

Tennessee, Mississippi and Louisiana. 

Hunters, farmers, landowners and conservation law enforcement would all benefit from 

increased clarity regarding the definition of normal agricultural practices relative to ratoon rice. 

Presently, hunters who lease rice fields from producers pay $5,000 to $10,000 per field or blind. 

As noted previously, in the MA V, ratoon crops are increasingly common, and with the 

increasing length of growing seasons, ratoon crops are expected to increase in this landscape. If 

the producer has performed any rolling, disking, mowing, or other treatment of a ratoon rice 

field, it currently remains unclear whether that field may be legally hunted under existing 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBT A) language. Hunting leases often are executed in the summer 

or early fall while ratoon crops may be developing, leading to concerns and questions as to 

whether even a small standing ratoon crop near a blind may be altered to facilitate waterfowl 

hunting. 

Ducks Unlimited and conservation partners recognize that rice agriculture is an essential habitat 

type along the Gulf Coast and in the MA V to meet population-based habitat objectives. Prior to 

1990, rice in the MA V provided substantial habitat benefits through provision of waste grain to 

wintering waterfowl. Changes in rice agriculture since 1990 have made rice fields significantly 

less valuable (about 71 percent less waste rice is present) as foraging habitat for waterfowl in the 

MA V. Developing ratoon crops, developing rice cultivars that readily ratoon, and accepting 

ratoon crops as part of producers' annual business plans would be a favorable development for 

producers, wintering waterfowl, and migratory shorebirds and wading birds. Producers would 

have an additional source of income via ratoon harvest and premium lease prices for optimal 

waterfowl habitat. Waterfowl would find about 2.3 to 5.9 times more waste rice in fields with 

availability timed to their traditional arrival in the MAVin November and December, much as it 

was in decades past when rice harvest was later in the calendar year. Finally, science has also 

shown that winter-impounded rice fields hold winter precipitation on fields resulting in 

significant improvements to water quality. 

This language seeks to provide the clarity hunters, farmers, landowners and conservation law 

enforcement desire with respect to MBT A baiting regulations. Furthermore, and our rice industry 

partners agree, this bill provides clarity that ultimately may encourage rice variety development 

favoring ratoon crop traits. This would likely increase profit margins from both rice production 

and waterfowl hunting leases, and enable producers to provide premium habitat for waterfowl 

and other migratory birds that otherwise would not be on the landscape. 

Chesapeake Bay 

I'd also like to thank the Committee, and especially Senators Cardin and Capito, for their 

leadership to ensure that this bill includes provisions that will help Chesapeake Bay. The 

Chesapeake is North America's largest estuary and is considered an iconic national treasure. 

The incredible efforts by federal, state and local governments combined with extraordinary 

efforts of non-profit organizations have had a positive impact on the Bay and its wildlife. The 
105 


26784.093

Bay and its tributaries are getting cleaner, and this legislation recognizes that we must continue 

these efforts to bring the Bay back to its former productivity. 

On the Eastern Shore of Maryland alone, we saw more than 812,000 migratory ducks, geese and 

swans wintering over in 2017. This number is higher than the five-year average and is a 22 

percent increase over the previous winter. Submerged aquatic vegetation (SA V or underwater 

bay grasses) is critical habitat for various fish and wildlife species, which filters out pollutants 

and provides a critical food source for waterfowl. Last year, SA V covered more than 97,000 

acres of Bay bottom the most coverage, by a large margin, since the annual survey began in the 

early 1980s. 

Decades of work are finally paying dividends in the Chesapeake, and this legislation ensures that 

progress will continue. The reauthorization of the Chesapeake Bay Program ensures that the 

science, data analysis, coordination, and restoration funding will continue, and the Chesapeake 

Gateways reauthorization helps to provide public access to these great natural resources. Public 

access is paramount to increasing local economic benefits as fishermen, hunters, boaters and 

others travel to the Bay to enjoy its recreational opportunities, and in doing so spend money at 

local restaurants, hotels, convenience stores, hunting and fishing supply stores and other business 

woven into the fabric of the region's economy. 

In addition, the reauthorization of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) is critical 

to the Chesapeake. NFWF administers two very important grant programs for the EPA in the 

Chesapeake- the Chesapeake Small Watershed Grants and Innovative Nutrient and Sediment 

Reduction Grants. NFWF does great work all over the country, but in the Chesapeake, they make 

a big impact. Since 20 I 0, NFWF projects in the six Chesapeake Bay watershed states, and the 

District of Columbia, have restored 49 miles of in-stream habitat, 692 miles of riparian habitat, 

and 541 acres of wetlands- all of which work to improve the Bay's water quality and lead to 

increased productivity at the root of the local and regional economy. 

Conclusion 

Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to testify regarding this important legislation, including 

the reauthorization ofNAWCA and the other important provisions I have discussed today. With 

your continued support of these programs, NA WCA will remain an essential voluntary tool to 

protect and conserve migratory bird populations, enable wetlands to provide important benefits 

to our nation's water quality and quantity, provide important contributions to our nation's 

economy, and serve as a model of how government can and should work. 

I look forward to working with your committee and our partners as the HELP Act moves 

forward, and to continue to support the benefits the bill would provide to wildlife and the 

millions of people who enjoy, or make their livings, in the outdoors. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for the opportunity to testify today and I will be pleased to 

answer any questions you may have. 
106 


26784.094

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

Hearing entitled, "Legislatb•e Hearing on S. 1514, the Hunting Heritage and Environmental 

Legacy Preservation (HELP) for Wildlife Act" 

July 19,2017 

Questions for the Record for Dale Hall 

Senator Wicker: 

I. There is a request by the Mississippi and Atlantic Flyway Councils to modify the closing 

date of duck season from its cmTent "floating date" of the "last Sunday in January" to a 

fixed date of Janumy 31. Currently, closing dates for duck seasons range from January 25 

to January 31, depending on the calendar structure each year. Does Ducks Unlimited 

support the request by the Mississippi and Atlantic Flyway Councils to modify the duck 

season framework as long as this proposal does not change total days in the field or bag 

limits unless specified by the Fish and Wildlife Service? 

Ducks Unlimited is the world's leading wetland conservation organization with over a 

million members and supporters, many a/which are waterfi!wl hunters. DU has great 

confidence in the Flyway Council process ofsetting water/owl hunting regulations. For 

many years. states and the United States Fish and Wildli/e Service (USFWS) have 

cooperated to develop regulations to appropriate(v and successfully manage watelfowl 

and other migratm:v bird populations to enable hunting opportunities. This cooperative 

ejjiJrt seeks to thoughtjit!ly balance applicable science and the desires of the states' 

sportsmen constituents. Recent(v, in keeping with the Flyway Council process, a proposal 

was put .forth by the Mississippi and Atlantic Flyways to modijj: the existing duck season 

framework dates to Janumy 3/. Given that available science suggests current rates of 

harvest do not significantlv impact waterfowl populations, DU is comfortable and 

supportive of this proposal. 

2. It is my understanding that no state will be required to change the end date of duck 

season. Do you believe that a state should be allowed to set their season dates according 

to the migration patterns of waterfowl and the desires of their sportsmen, as long as it 

does not negatively affect the waterfowl resource or other states? 

At Ducks Unlimited, we believe the states should have flexibility to set dates that are 

v<'ithin the seasonjimnework established via the annual dialogue between the Flyway 

Councils and the USFWS Regulations Committee, and that the latest season closing date 

should be no later than January 31, thereby remaining consistent with the long standing 

Adaptive Harvest Management process. This should accommodate the desires of hunters, 

and ensure that hunting seasons have minima/negative biological consequences to 

waterfowl populations as many species of waterfowl begin their migration north to 

breeding areas in late winter. The North American Waterfi;wl Management Plan 

(NA TYMP) directly addresses the importance o,/people and the human dimensions o,l 
107 


26784.095

>vaterjbw/ conservation, but also seeks to sustain waterjbw/ populationsfi>rfitture 

generations. I believe this approach wi!! directly address the desires oj'many sportsmen 

and women and help maintain the number ofhwzters engaged in our rich waterfowl 

hunting heritage, while simultaneously keeping the NAWMP commitments to sustaining 

waterfowl populations and habitats. 
108 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. 

Hall. We are delighted to have you. 

Ms. Coble. 

STATEMENT OF KIM COBLE, VICE PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND RESTORATION, THE CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION 

Ms. COBLE. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and 

distinguished members of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I am Kim Coble, Vice President of Environmental Protection and Restoration for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. On behalf of our board, staff, and members, thank you for inviting me 

to participate in today’s hearing to discuss the HELP for Wildlife 

bill. And thank you to the bill cosponsors on the Committee, Senator Barrasso, Senator Cardin, Senator Capito, Senator Boozman, 

for your leadership in introducing the bill. 

At CBF we have over 240,000 members and are proud to count 

sportsmen and anglers among them. In fact, our founders were 

sportsmen and anglers, and we have found them to be great conservationists. 

Today we are sitting in the middle of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, which feeds the great estuary in our nation. The Chesapeake 

watershed spans six States, 64,000 square miles, and encompasses 

over 3,600 species of plants and animals. We are surrounded by astonishing lands and waters that our extraordinary life depends on. 

These resources not only provide substantial ecological value, but 

they also provide tremendous economic value. 

Data from the outdoors industry underscore how important these 

lands and waters are to sportsmen, anglers, and other outdoor 

lovers in the region. According to the Outdoors Industry Association, annual consumer spending on outdoor recreation is $644 billion. In Maryland, West Virginia, and Delaware alone, the 2012 

outdoor recreation economy generated a total of 206,000 direct jobs, 

$21.1 billion in consumer spending, and provided $5.9 billion in 

wages and salaries. 

Given both the ecological and economic value of the Chesapeake 

ecosystem, it is easy to understand why the six Bay States have 

been working together under a formal voluntary agreement since 

1983 to restore the Chesapeake Bay watershed. At that time, our 

States realized isolated local restoration work was not yielding the 

results that are needed, and a Federal partnership was critical to 

achieving these results. 

Today, our States operate under the 2014 Chesapeake Bay 

Agreement. The first three goals of this agreement are to protect, 

restore, and enhance fisheries and vital habitats, and achieve the 

water quality necessary to support these living resources. These 

three goals are at the heart of the programs put forward on the 

HELP for Wildlife Act. 

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation strongly supports the conservation programs included in this bill. They are important to the 

sportsmen and anglers in our region, and to restoring the Chesapeake Bay through the 2014 Bay Agreement. They work together 

to support both local interests and the larger restoration of the 

cross-State ecosystem. 

109 

The Chesapeake Bay Program reauthorized by this bill exists to 

help Bay States achieve their goals in the Bay Agreement. It facilitates the Federal partnership that is critical for protecting and restoring the multi-State Chesapeake ecosystem. The Chesapeake 

Bay Program has allowed States to set science based goals that address the needs of the entire ecosystem, but are also tailored to 

local habitats and values. The majority of program funding is invested through matching grants in local projects that directly help 

protect and restore wildlife and fisheries in their habitats. 

This leads me to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, or 

NFWF. NFWF administers some of the grants that are established 

by the Chesapeake Bay Program through their Chesapeake Stewardship Fund. These matching grants incentivize local watershed 

protection and stewardship, but they must also help the States 

meet their science based Bay Agreement goals. 

Take wetlands, for example. States have set a goal to restore 

85,000 acres of wetlands and enhance an additional 150,000 acres 

of wetlands by 2025. This Stewardship Fund can be invested in 

local stewardship projects that help reach that goal. In this way 

they achieve a win-win for local stakeholders and ecosystems. 

Both NAWCA and the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act provide critical investment and support for local stakeholder 

projects and habitat restorations. As a midpoint for the Atlantic 

flyway, the Chesapeake is a critical area for migratory birds and 

provides great systems for ecotourism and birders. 

Moving to fish habitat, codifying the National Fish Habitat Partnership will support locally led Atlantic Fish Habitat Partnership, 

which CBF is proud to be a member of, and the Chesapeake Bay 

Gateways and Watertrails network and Grants Program supports 

local initiatives to connect outdoor lovers with natural resources by 

expanding the physical access to the Bay. 

Programs included in this bill are very important to sportsmen 

and anglers in our region, and to the success of the 2014 Bay 

Agreement. They work together to support both local interest in 

restoration needs, and for this reason the Chesapeake Bay Foundation strongly supports the conservation programs included in the 

HELP for Wildlife Act. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Coble follows:] 

110 


26784.096

Kim Coble 

Vice President, Environmental Protection & Restoration 

Chesapeake Bay Foundation 

Baltimore, Maryland 

Ms. Coble joined the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) in 

1992 as the Senior Scientist in the Foundation's Virginia office. 

In 2003, Ms. Coble was named CBF's Maryland Executive 

Director, where she directed policy and managed a diverse team 

of scientists, land use specialists, la\\-yers, grassroots 

coordinators and volunteers to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay. In 2011, she became 

CBF's Vice President of Environmental Protection and Restoration. In this capacity, she directs 

all policy, advocacy, and restoration efforts throughout the watershed. 

Ms. Coble currently serves on the boards of Agro-Ecology, Maryland Leadership Workshops 

and Restore America's Estuaries. She has also been a member of Leadership Maryland since 

2004. 

Ms. Coble holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in biology from University ofPuget Sound and a 

Master's of Science Public Health degree in environmental health and toxicology from 

University of Washington. 
111 


26784.097

(~j) CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION 

'"J- ~·t Saving a National Treasure ·-r~-11!1'!!'-"lG, 

Statement of Kim Coble, 

Vice President, Chesapeake Bay Foundation 

Prepared for a hearing on S. 1514, 

the Hunting Heritage and Environmental Legacy Preservation (HELP) for Wildlife Act, 

United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

July 19,2017 

Chainnan Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and distinguished members of the 

Environment and Public Works Committee, lam Kim Coble, Vice President for Environmental 

Protection and Restoration for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF). On behalf of CBF's 

board, staff, and members, thank you for inviting me to participate in today's hearing. 

Sportsmen and Anglers arc some of the best conservationists. At CBF we have over 240,000 

members and are proud to count many sportsmen and anglers among them. This year we are 

celebrating our 501

h year. Sportsmen and anglers were among our founders. Restoring fish and 

wildlife habitat has been central to our work from Day One. Our members generously support 

our work on farms, along rivers and streams, and in the Bay, to plant underwater grasses and 

trees, build streamside buffers, and restore and build oyster reefs as well as our advocacy to 

restore and maintain our valuable fisheries. 

1 
112 


26784.098

In my testimony, I hope to show you why fish and wildlife habitat and restoration matters so 

much to our members and how the programs in this bill manage to deliver so much value. 

Today, you are sitting in the middle of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, which feeds the greatest 

estuary in our nation. The Chesapeake Bay watershed spans 6 states and Washington D.C., over 

64,000 square miles, and sustains more than 3,600 species of plants and animals. Imagine for a 

moment what this means. The hardwood forests of the Appalachian mountains to the saltwater 

marshes of the Chesapeake Bay provide food, protection and nesting areas to many species. 

Scores of healthy Bald Eagles feed and breed at the Conowingo Dam, shad spawn in our rivers in 

numbers we haven't seen in decades, stripers and migrating birds draw anglers and bird watchers 

from around the world to our contests and festivals. We are surrounded by astonishing lands and 

waters and the abundant and extraordinary life that depends on it. 

Data from the outdoors industry underscore how important these lands and waters are to 

spattsmen, anglers and other outdoor lovers in our region. According to the Outdoor Industry 

Association, annual consumer spending on outdoor recreation is $644 Billion. In Maryland, 

West Virginia and Delaware alone, the 2012 outdoor recreation economy generated a total of 

206,000 direct jobs; $21.1 Billion in consumer spending and provided in wages and salaries a 

total of $5.9 B. In this context, it is easy to understand why the six Chesapeake Bay States have 

been working together under a formal voluntary agreement since 1983 to restore the Chesapeake 

Bay watershed. In fact, the first three goals of the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Agreement of which 

the governors of the six states signed, arc to protect, restore and enhance fisheries and vital 

habitats, and achieve water quality necessary to support living resources. 

2 
113 


26784.099

Chesapeake Bay Foundation strongly supports the conservation programs included in the HELP 

for Wildlife Act. These programs work with our Sportsmen and angling communities to deliver 

highly valued conservation impact in alignment with the Chesapeake Bay Agreement and they 

help drive our robust outdoors economy. There is one point that I cannot overstate: Each 

program is an excellent steward of taxpayer investments. Each program leverages investments 

from local groups like the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and local and state governmentinvestments that often more than double federal investments. 

I will start with the Chesapeake Bay Program. This program provides critical support for the 

Chesapeake Bay Agreement through several conservation grant programs that invest in 

fisheries and habitat restoration. The majority of funds are invested in projects that support state 

goals and are matched dollar for dollar with local investments. For example, in FY16, $29M 

was invested through three of the Bay Program grant programs and raised an additional $29M in 

local conservation investments. This resulted in on the ground investment of $58M. By 

increasing the authorized funding level for the Bay Program in this bill, it will be possible to 

leverage more local investments in fish and habitat conservation. 

The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), also extended by this bill, administers 

two of the Chesapeake Bay Program conservation grant programs through their Chesapeake 

Stewardship Fund. Leaders at NFWF use science to drive their investments in land and water 

habitat conservation projects to ensure they achieve maximum impact across the landscape while 

supporting local priorities. One recent example is Chesapeake Bay Foundation's Virginia and 

Upper Potomac Farm Stewardship Program in Virginia, Maryland and West Virginia. By 

3 
114 


26784.100

working with farmers to adopt agricultural best management practices, such as rotational 

grazing, stream exclusion, and wetland and riparian buffer restoration, we help them improve 

water quality, increase productivity of farming operations, and enhance wildlife habitat- and 

help Bay States to meet their Chesapeake Bay Agreement goals, In this example, NFWF and 

NRCS invested $398,740 which leveraged and additional $311,222 to engage 64 landowners and 

reduce 3,960 pounds of nitrogen, 1,419 pounds of phosphorus and 169 tons of sediment from 

local rivers, streams and the bay. 

Likewise, the National Fish Habitat Partnership supports locally-led fish habitat efforts. By 

codifying this partnership, this bill will be securing the federal partnership for this effort led by 

local stewards. The Chesapeake Bay is part of the Atlantic Coastal Fish Habitat Partnership, a 

16 state collaborative effort to accelerate the conservation of habitat for native Atlantic coastal, 

estuarine-dependent, and diadromous fishes. As a member of this partnership, CBF is proud to 

join resource managers, scientists and professionals representing 33 different state, federal, 

tribal, non-governmental and other entities. The Partnership stretches from Maine to the Florida 

Keys, and from the headwaters of coastally draining rivers to the edge of the continental she] f, 

with a focus in estuarine environments. In the Chesapeake Bay watershed, the Partnership 

supports stewardship activities that are helping to address regional habitat priorities, such as the 

fisheries and habitat goals of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. For example, an important recent 

project on the James River in Virginia restored spawning habitat for Atlantic Sturgeon as well as 

American shad, herring, and striped bass, by installing hard substrate. It was driven by local 

project partners, working in collaboration with National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration and US Fish and Wildlife Service. 

4 
115 


26784.101

The North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NA WCA) provides matching grants to 

organizations and individuals who have developed partnerships to carry out wetlands 

conservation projects in the United States, Canada, and Mexico for the benefit of wetlandsassociated migratory birds and other wildlife. The program provides critical support for the 

Chesapeake Bay Agreement by leveraging local investment to help achieve the goal to restore, 

enhance and protect a network of land and water habitats to support fish and wildlife. By 2025, 

Bay states aim to create or reestablish 85,000 acres of tidal and nontidal wetlands and enhance 

the function of an additional 150,000 acres of degraded wetlands. CBF has partnered with 

Ducks Unlimited for years to implement NA WCA wetlands conservation projects in the Bay 

watershed. But to demonstrate the kind of leveraging the program can deliver, I want to describe 

aNA WCA-supported project in Anne Arundel County, Maryland. With a $1M grant, the 

program leveraged an additional $9.2M investment from the Conservation Fund and the 

Chesapeake Bay Foundation to acquire, restore and enhance 304 acres on a largely undeveloped 

peninsula on the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay with more than three miles of bay 

frontage. The Maryland Department of Resources holds a conservation casement on the 

property, which is a staging and wintering area for waterfowl, a valuable breeding and stopover 

site for songbirds, a rookery site for herons, and a nesting site for bald eagles. The land's tidal 

marshes, hardwood swamps, and woodlands provide critical habitat for 18 breeding and 

wintering species of concern and 12 migrant species of concern. The land will be permanently 

protected for wildlife. 

5 
116 


26784.102

In coordination with programs like NA WCA, the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act, supports habitat conservation along the entire flyway for neotropical birds that migrate 

through the watershed. "The Chesapeake Bay is home to many national wildlife refuges. As a 

midway point on the Atlantic flyway, the Chesapeake Bay is a significant draw for birders and 

eeotourists, particularly on the Delmarva Peninsula. The Eastern Shore Birding and Wildlife 

Festival will hold its 25'h event this year, drawing 43 percent of attendants from out of state. 

And finally, the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails network and Grants Program 

support local initiatives to connect outdoor lovers to the watershed's natural resources. 

Expanding physical access to the Bay and its tributaries through existing and new local, state and 

federal parks, refuges, reserves, trails and partner sites is a goal of the 2014 Chesapeake Bay 

Agreement and this program directly supports state and local efforts. The Chesapeake Bay 

Gateways and Watertrails network is a system of over 170 sites located within the watershed 

with varied cultural and natural sites on water and land. The program is valuable to our members 

and communities and we fully support it's extension. 

I hope I have drawn a picture for you today of how much our members, our sportsmen and 

anglers and as a result, our local and state governments, value fish and wildlife and the critical 

federal partnership the programs in this bill provide. These programs directly support local 

programs and are aligned with and support the state-led Chesapeake Bay Agreement. The fact 

is, fish and wildlife know no state boundaries. For this reason, federal partnership through 

programs that work with our Sportsmen and angling communities, impact local priorities and 

6 
117 


26784.103

maintain our robust outdoors economy is very important and your leadership is greatly 

appreciated. 

7 
118 


26784.104

Question for the Record: 

Chairman Barrasso: 

I. Ms Coble, in your June 28, 2017 op-ed published in USA Today, you stated that the 

Chesapeake Bay Program "is the glue that holds the multi state restoration effort together." 

Section 10 of the HELP for Wildlife Act would reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Program for 

five years starting in fiscal year 2018. How do you see the funding being used over that period 

to effectively further the goals of improving water quality and local economies in the 

Chesapeake Bay area? 

Response for the Record: 

As noted in the question posed, in my June 28, 2017 OpEd published in USA Today, I stated 

that the Chesapeake Bay Program "is the glue that holds the multistate restoration effort 

together.'' The Chesapeake Bay Program, which would be reauthorized under Section 10 ofthe 

HELP for Wildlife Act, is established for the purpose of supporting the Chesapeake Bay 

Agreement, which was voluntarily signed in 2014 by the seven jurisdictions of the Chesapeake 

Bay Watershed-- Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, New York and 

the District of Columbia-- and the federal government. 

None of the states can save the Bay alone. Science tells us the Bay is in fact a system, and it must 

be managed with a systems approach. That is exactly what the Bay Program provides. The 

watershed covers a 64,000 square mile, 7-jurisdiction area. Cross-state collaboration and 

coordination is critical. The Bay Program provides this, as well as other essential watershedwide functions such as data collection, monitoring, modeling and reporting that states use to 

make management decisions and track their progress. Significantly, it also provides grant 

awards that drive significant local investment in the Bay Agreement activities. 

From 2018 to 2023, Chesapeake Bay Program funding would continue to support the 2014 Bay 

Agreement. Fundamentally, the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Agreement envisions an environmentally 

and economically sustainable Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Partners are committed to 
119 


26784.105

restoration success while maximizing economic benefits and many of the principles of the 

Agreement support this commitment. The Partners established many goals, one of which relates 

to Water Quality and they agreed upon a Management Strategy to achieve that goal. They have 

made unique commitments regarding how they will each support the Partnership in achieving 

this goal, and have developed unique long-term plans and two-year workplans to achieve their 

commitments. The Chesapeake Bay Program supports both the collaborative development and 

review of these plans as well as the in-state implementation of the Partners' unique workplans. 

While these plans are not yet written for the period 20 18 to 2023, by examining how the Bay 

Program has consistently supported them to date, it is possible to predict how it will support 

them- and specifically the Water Quality Goal and local economy- in future years. Each of 

these elements is described in more detail below. 

The Chesapeake Bay Agreement 

In 1983, three Chesapeake Bay states, the District of Columbia and the federal government 

signed the first Chesapeake Bay Agreement, formed the Chesapeake Executive Council and 

established the Chesapeake Bay Program partnership to restore and protect the Chesapeake 

Bay. To support this program, Congress established the federal Chesapeake Bay Program, 

including the Chesapeake Bay Program Office and two federal assistance and grants 

programs. In 2014, this partnership expanded, as all seven watershed jurisdictions signed a new 

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement and joined the Council. This new Agreement includes a 

Vision Statement, Goals and Outcomes, Management Strategies, and two-year workplans for 

each signatory. 

The Bay Agreement envisions an environmentally and economically sustainable Chesapeake 

Bay Watershed. As stated in the 2014 Agreement: 

"The Chesapeake Bay Program partners envision an environmentally and 

economically sustainable Chesapeake Bay watershed with clean water, abundant life, 

conserved lands and access to the water, a vibrant cultural heritage and a diversity of 

engaged citizens." 

Partners are committed to restoration success while maximizing economic benefits. As the 

Agreement states: 
120 


26784.106

"Watershed restoration and protection have the potential to become integral drivers 

of the region's economy. To that end, the Partnership is committed to achieving 

restoration success while maximizing the economic benefits to local communities 

across the region. The signatories to this voluntary Agreement commit to achieving the 

restoration and protection of the Chesapeake Bay watershed and its living resources." 

Many of the Principles of the Agreement support these commitments, including: 

• Achieve Goals and Outcomes in a timely way and at the least possible cost to our 

citizens. 

• Represent the interests of people throughout the watershed fairly and effectively, 

including a broad diversity of cultures, demographics and ages. 

• Acknowledge, support and embrace local governments and other local entities in 

watershed restoration and protection activities. 

• Adaptively manage at all levels of the Partnership to foster continuous improvement. 

Seek consensus when making decisions. 

• Use place-based approaches, where appropriate, that produce recognizable benefits to 

local communities while contributing to larger ecosystem goals. 

• Engage citizens to increase the number and diversity of people who support and carry out 

the conservation and restoration activities necessary to achieve the Goals and Outcomes 

of the Agreement. 

The 2014 Bay Agreement includes a Water Quality Goal which is supported by a Management 

Strategy and Outcomes. This goal is: To reduce pollutants to achieve the water quality 

necessary to support the aquatic living resources of the Bay and its tributaries and protect 

human health. Partners have made unique commitments to achieve this goal and have submitted 

both long-term plans and two year workplans detailing how they will do so. In this way, the 

Partners themselves determine how they will maximize the economic benefits to their local 

communities, as described in the Agreement's vision statement. 

Chesapeake Bay Program provides Programmatic and Funding support for Chesapeake 

Bay Agreement and Partners 
121 


26784.107

The Chesapeake Bay Program, through the Bay Program Office in Annapolis, Maryland, 

provides programmatic support that fosters collaboration between watershed states and other 

federal agencies and coordinates and helps implement the science, research, modeling, support 

services, monitoring, data collection, and other activities essential to achieve the Partners' vision 

of an environmentally and economically sustainable Chesapeake Bay watershed. A majority of 

the Bay Program the budget goes towards grant programs which Congress established 

specifically to leverage significant additional funds to assist states and local partners in 

implementing the Bay Agreement. Future funding for the Program will maintain these activities. 

Programmatic Support 

The Chesapeake Bay Program currently supports the implementation of the Water Quality 

Management Strategy in the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. (Attachment: 2017 W1P, 2025 W1P 

and Water Quality Standards Attainment & Monitoring Outcomes Management Strategy, 2015-

2025, vi). Future funding for the Program will support continued collaboration ofthe Partners 

that have committed to achieve this goal, i.e. Maryland, Virginia, DC, Pennsylvania, Delaware, 

West Virginia, New York, the Chesapeake Bay Commission, the US EPA, US Army Corps of 

Engineers, US Geographic Service, US Natural Resource Conservation Service, US Department 

of Defense, US Department ofTransportation, as well as the implementation of Partners' 

individual workplans. (Attachment: Partner Commitments in Chesapeake Bay Watershed 

Agreement Workplans (April29, 2016)). While the milestones and workplans for 2018 to 2023 

have not been developed, the future programmatic support can be inferred from the current 

(2016-2017) 2-year plan. (Attachments: 2017 WIP, 2025 W1P and Water Quality Standards 

Attainment & Monitoring, Watershed Implementation Plans 2 Year Milestones). Key activities 

for 2016-2017 from this plan include: 

• Supporting Best Management Practice Verification. 

• Supporting continued Best Management Practice implementation tracking and reporting 

on agricultural lands and in the urban stormwater sector, as well as other sectors (for 

example, through enhancing the next generation of decision support tools, managing and 

verifying implementation data. 

Guiding the development of jurisdictions' trading and offset programs. 

• Supporting continued wastewater treatment plant and septic upgrades and enhancements. 
122 


26784.108

Continuing work to improve temporal and regional patterns in water quality criteria 

attainment in tidal and non-tidal waters. 

• Coordinating the Chesapeake Bay Program non-tidal water quality network. 

• Addressing gaps in monitoring programs through the Chesapeake Bay Program 

Monitoring Team with partners. 

• Developing and applying new approaches for quantifying and explaining water quality 

trends in tidal waters. 

• Explaining the drivers of water quality trends in the watershed. 

• Providing information to enhance the Chesapeake Bay Program watershed models. 

• Releasing the Phase 6 Watershed Model. 

• Developing Phase ll! WIP expectations with Bay Jurisdictions. 

• Collecting local land use data with Bay State and local Jurisdictions. 

Funding Support, Local Impact 

The Chesapeake Bay Agreement Partners are restoring the natural resources that make the Bay 

watershed an economic engine that supports significant economic activity. In addition, the Bay 

and its tributaries currently provide services such as flood protection, water supply, waste 

management and other benefits that have been valued at $107 billion per year. This will increase 

by at least $22 billion per year when the Water Quality strategies and restoration activities in 

Partners' workplans are implemented. 1 

The grants programs administered by the Bay Program have been designed by Congress to be 

responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars. These grants programs constitute a majority of the 

program budget and are directly invested in local priorities in the Partners' two year workplans. 

Most of these programs leverage at least a one to one match of additional investments. In 

FY16, three of the grant programs invested a total of $29 million to deliver a total of$58 million 

on-the-ground local priority projects. Since 2008, $183 million in federal funds have delivered 

1 Chesapeake Bay Foundation. 2014. The Economic Benefits of Saving the Chesapeake. 

http:/ jwww .chesa pea keb ay. net/channel_ files/21411/fi n a I ben efitsofth eb I u e print_ tech report_ and_ sum m ary20141 

002_sem.pdf 
123 


26784.109

$366 million of investments. Yet management costs are kept low. In FYI6, program operations 

and support were 6.6% of their budget, or $5.1 million. 

The programs include State Implementation Grants, Water Quality Monitoring Grants, and 

Stewardship Grants. State Implementation Grants provide jurisdictions with support for 

implementing their management strategies. The cost-share requirement for this program is a I: I 

match, meaning the FYI6 2016 investment of $30.9M drove at least an additional $30.9M 

investment, resulting in $61.8M locally invested in implementing the management strategies. 

Water Quality Monitoring Grants provide jurisdictions with support for monitoring the 

Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. With a I: I cost-share requirement, the $4.8M investment in FYI6 

delivered $9.6M investment in this critical activity that benefits all partners. Stewardship Grants 

(including innovative nutrient and sediment reduction and small watershed grants) provide 

funding to local governments, nonprofit organizations, and individuals to protect and improve 

watersheds, while building citizen-based resource stewardship. With the cost-share requirement 

for this program, the $12M investment in FY2016 delivered at least $18M in local stewardship. 

These grants directly support local investment and restoration projects in Partners' workplans 

that are rebuilding the natural resources that local industries and related local economies depend 

upon. The Chesapeake Bay Watershed's regional economy provides 8.3 million jobs and an 

annual income of almost $400 billion according to the U.S. Census Bureau data from County 

Business Patterns. Many local industries depend on the robust natural resources and abundant 

clean water which will result from achieving the Bay Agreement goals, notably the commercial 

seafood, recreation and tourism, and real estate industries. By investing with local communities 

in local stormwater and agricultural projects, oyster and other habitat restoration projects, the 

Bay Program is helping Partners' direct investments towards building and securing the industries 

tied to these resources. For example, a 2008 NOAA report showed that the commercial seafood 

industry in Maryland and Virginia contributed $3 billion and more than 41,000 jobs to the local 

economy. This industry is only as robust as the natural resource on which it relies. 

Looking just at the oyster industry in Virginia. which benefits from Bay Program collaboration 

and investments in restoring oyster reefs and other habitat as well as improved water quality, 
124 


26784.110

Virginia's oyster fanners sold $16 million in oysters in 2015 according to the Virginia Institute 

of Marine Science. One local business that is now thriving is the Rappahannock Oyster 

Company. Established by a family that had been harvesting oysters since 1899 but had had to 

cease in 1991 due to poor oyster conditions, today they are back in business. In 2015, oyster 

harvests in the watershed exceeded one million bushels for the first time in thirty years-- a direct 

result of' the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. in which Partners· committed to restore reefs and 

populations in ten rivers by 2025. Through Hay Program collaboration and targeted restoration 

investments, hundreds of acres of oyster reefs have been completed in Maryland and Virginia 

and other restoration projects that improve habitat and water quality have occurred. 

Today, the Rappahannock Oyster Company is thriving. The company operates six restaurants 

in California, South Carolina, Washington, D.C., and Virginia-- and ships their oysters 

worldwide, supplying both wholesale and retail customers. The local economy directly benefits 

from this business-- from those who grow and harvest the oysters, to wholesale distributors, to 

restaurant suppliers and employees, and many other elements of the economy to which they are 

connected. They also market the business as a tourist destination of its own, and encourage 

visitors not only to visit their businesses, but also to stay in local hotels and visit local sites and 

enjoy outdoors recreation. 

Local economic success stories like the Rappahanock Oyster Company are by their nature 

unique. But across the watershed, improvements in water quality and related natural resource 

investments that Bay Program grants support are improving the entire ecosystem. At the 

Chesapeake Bay Foundation, our scientists are reporting improvements across all indicators: in 

water quality, habitat, and fisheries such as oysters. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

reports that "from 1999 to 2016, the Chesapeake Bay Stewardship Fund awarded nearly I ,000 

grants totaling more than $100 million. These investments leveraged more than $200 million in 

local matching resources to st1pport a wide range of conservation projects throughout the Bay 

basin. In total, these grants have: 

Reduced annual nitrogen pollution loading by an estimated 18.4 million pounds 

Reduced annual phosphorus loading by an estimated 4.3 million pounds 

Reduced annual sediment loading by an estimated 7.8 million tons 
125 


26784.111

Restored more than 2,000 miles of streams 

Treated stormwater runoff from 11,320 acres of impervious surfaces 

Reached an estimated 2 million residents through outreach efforts 

Restored over 6,600 acres of wetlands and 1,670 miles of forested riparian buffers 

Installed over 320 miles of livestock exclusion stream fencing 

Reconnected over 245 miles of rivers and streams for fish passage 

Established 279 acres of oyster reefs''2 

As local restoration improvements accrue, we see business growing in the outdoors industry 

(which supports over 820,800 jobs and over $13 billion in income annually), the commercial 

fishing industry, (which accounts for 7,952 jobs in the states of Delaware, Maryland and 

Virginia, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), the seafood 

industry, (which contributes to over 24,000 processing, wholesale and distribution and related 

jobs in Delaware, Maryland and Virginia), and many others, Continued funding for the Bay 

Program and the grants it administers will continue this positive trend. 

Closing 

By supporting collaboration and leveraging significant investments in state-identified priorities, 

the Bay Program supports the Partners' visions for how they will achieve their water quality 

goals while maximizing the economic benefits to their local communities. While the specific 

actions the Bay Program will take between 2018 and 2023 arc not known, what we do know is 

the Bay Program has a track record of providing widely acknowledged, critical support for the 

2014 Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Central to this Agreement is a vision for an environmentally 

and economically sustainable Chesapeake Bay watershed with clean water, abundant life, 

conserved lands and access to the water, a vibrant cultural heritage and a diversity of engaged 

citizens. While the Bay Program itself does not determine how the Partners will achieve this 

vision of an environmentally and economically sustainable watershed, it is explicitly designed to 

support Partners in their pursuit of both. Throughout the watershed, improvements in water 

quality and natural resources are enhancing local economies- a positive trend that will be 

sustained by future funding for the Chesapeake Bay Program. 

2 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, accessed 8/17/17, http:/ /www.nfwf.org/chesapeake/Pages/home.aspx 
126 


26784.112

I. Introduction 

For the past 30 years, the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) partnership1 has been committed to achieving 

and maintaining the water quality conditions necessary to support living resources throughout the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed. Building off these commitments and using the best scientific information 

available, the CBP partnership agreed to the nutrient and sediment a!locations in the 2010 Chesapeake 

Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (Bay TMDL) 2

, a historic and comprehensive pollution reduction effort in 

the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The Bay TMDL identifies the necessary pollution reductions of nitrogen, 

phosphorus and sediment across the seven Bay watershed jurisdictions of Delaware, Maryland, New 

York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia to meet applicable water quality 

standards in the Bay and its tidal waters. Reducing pollution is critical to restoring the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed because clean water is the foundation for healthy fisheries, habitats, and communities across 

1 www.chesapeakebay.net 

2 EPA's Chesapeake Bay TMDL: www.eoa.qavlchesaef.9.tclzm1:!!1..1l 
127 


26784.113

Chesapeake Bay Management Strategy 

2017 WIP, 2025 WIP and Water Quality Standards Attainment 

& Monitoring Outcomes 

the region. All partners and source sectors3 must contribute substantial efforts to achieve the Bay TMOl 

allocations. 

The Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs), developed by the seven Bay watershed jurisdictions, 

provide a roadmap for how the jurisdictions, in partnership with federal and local governments, will 

achieve the Bay TMDL's nutrient and sediment allocations. As such, the W!Ps collectively serve as the 

foundation of the management strategy for the water quality related outcomes. The jurisdictions are 

expected to develop WIPs over three Phases. Phase I and Phase U W!Ps, developed and submitted to 

EPA in 2010 and 2012, respectively, describe actions and controls to be implemented by 2017 and 2025 

to achieve applicable water quality standards. The Phase II W!Ps build on the initial Phase I WIPs by 

providing more specific local actions. The Phase I and Phase II WIPs can be accessed here: 

www.epa.gov/chesa~iU?Mtm.Ql. As part of the accountability framework established in the Bay TMDL 

document, jurisdictions also establish short-term goals in the form of two-year milestones which are 

based on the WIPs and have been reported to EPA since 2011. 

In 2018, the seven Bay watershed jurisdictions will develop Phase Ill WIPs that provide more information 

on what actions the jurisdictions intend to implement between 2018 and 2025. Based on a midpoint 

assessment of progress and scientific analyses that is currently underway through 2017, the Phase Ill 

WIPs will be developed so that by 2025 all practices are in place that are necessary to meet applicable 

water quality standards in the Bay and its tidal tributaries. 

In conjunction with the implementation of the WIPs, the CBP partnership is currently engaged in an 

evaluation of water quality changes to explain progress toward meeting water quality standards and the 

Bay TMDL This evaluation includes assessing changes in nutrients and sediment in the Bay watershed 

and analyzing water quality trends in the estuary and tidal tributaries. In addition, the CBP partnership 

will conduct selected assessments of factors affecting progress towards restoring water quality, habitat, 

fish and wildlife, and conserving lands, including the effects of management activities. Further 

incorporation and use of monitoring information to assess progress is critical to better understand how 

on the ground actions have an impact toward meeting the 2017 and 2025 WIP outcomes, particularly 

since monitoring assessments will ultimately determine when the jurisdictions' water quality standards 

are achieved. 

II. Goal, Outcome and Baseline 

This management strategy identifies approaches for achieving the following goal and outcomes: 

Water Quality Goal 

Reduce pollut<1nts to <1chieve water quality necessary to support the aquatic living 

resources of the Bay and 1ts tnbutanes and protect human health. 

>Section 4 of the Boy TMDL: wastewater, agriculture, urban storm water, septic systems, forests and air 

2 
128 


26784.114

2017 WIP Outcome 

By 2017, have practices and controls in place that exp~cted to achieve 60 percent of the nutrient 

and sediment pollution load reductions necessary to achieve applicable water quality standards 

compared to 2009leve!s. 

2025 WIP Outcome 

By 2025, have all practices and controls i11sta!!ed to achieve the B<~y's dissolved oxygen, water 

clarity/submerged aquatic vegetation and chlorophyll a standards as <1rticulated in the Chesapeake 

Bay TMDL document 

Water Quality Standards Attainment & Monitoring Outcome 

Continually improve the capacity to monitor and assess the effects of management actions being 

undertaken to implement the Bay TMDL ilnd improve w<Jter quality. Use the monitoring results to 

report annually to the public on progress made in attaining established Bay water quality st<Jndards 

and trends in reducing nutrients and sediment in the w<Hershed. 

Baseline and Current Condition 

Background 

In 2009, the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council established the CBP goal that all practices for a clean 

Chesapeake Bay be in place by 2025. The Bay TMDL document describes this goal, as well as the interim 

goal that practices be in place by 2017 to achieve 60 percent of the necessary reductions compared to 

2009. The baseline for the 2017 goal are the 2009 estimates of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment 

loads {in pounds per year) in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. These estimates were obtained from the 

CBP partnership's modeling tools that are calibrated to monitoring data and use implementation data 

collected from the seven Bay watershed jurisdictions. The year 2009 was established as the baseline 

year because it the last year for which pollution reduction progress was assessed prior to EPA 

establishing the Bay TMDL in 2010. 

In 2012, the CBP partnership endorsed an integrated approach to assessing progress toward meeting 

the Bay TMDL nutrient and sediment reduction goals and attaining applicable water quality standards 

through using both modeling tools and monitoring data. CBP partners reaffirmed their continued 

support for monitoring networks, annual reporting of standards attainment, and nutrient and sediment 

trends in the watershed. For the past two years, CBP's Science, Technical Assessment and Reporting 

Team (STAR) has been focused on Building and Sustaining Integrated Networks (BASIN). BASIN is an 

effort to develop new approaches to expand and sustain the CBP monitoring activities to meet the 

needs of the CBP partnership. 

The Chesapeake Bay's tidal waters are divided into 92 segments, and each segment has up to five 

designated aquatic life uses which equates to a total of 291 designated uses. The measure of success for 

this integrated approach is to meet all applicable nutrient- and sediment-related water quality standards 

in the tidal Chesapeake Bay necessary to protect the designated uses for those 92 segments. 

3 
129 


26784.115

Chesapeake Bay Management Strategy 

2017 WfP, 2015 WIP and Wotcr Quality .Standards Attainment 

& Monitoring Outcomes 

Progress to Date 

The WIPs identify how the seven Bay watershed jurisdictions are putting measures in place by 2025 that 

are needed to restore the Bay, and by 2017 to achieve at least 60 percent of the necessary nitrogen, 

phosphorus and sediment reductions compared to 2009 levels. 

As of 2013, based on the CBP partnership modeling tool estimates, practices are in place to achieve 27 

percent of the nitrogen reductions, 43 percent of the phosphorus reductions and 37 percent of the 

sediment reductions (compared to 2009 levels) that are necessary to attain applicable water quality 

standards in the Bay4• 

Attaining water quality standards is essential to other CBP goal areas including habitat and fisheries. 

Attaining the standards also provides substantial benefits for protection of human health, aesthetic and 

recreational uses. The "water quality standards attainment" outcome will require the monitoring of 

water quality conditions to assess progress towards achieving applicable water quality standards in Bay 

and tidal water restoration to support aquatic living resources. 

Through 2012, the CBP partnership found that 31 percent of the Bay and its tidal waters were attaining 

applicable water quality standards (i.e., 90 of 291 designated uses have been met). Seventy percent of 

the monitoring sites through 2012 showed long~term improvements in nitrogen and phosphorus. From 

2003-2012, nitrogen conditions improved at about one half of monitoring sites, while phosphorus 

concentrations show little or no change at more than one half of such sites. Improvement for sediment 

concentrations is less than that for nutrients, with 28 percent of monitoring sites showing long-term 

improvement (since 1985) and 10 percent of sites from 2003-20125 . 

Ill. Participating Partners 

The following partners have participated in the development of this strategy. A workplan to accompany 

this management strategy will be within one year after this document is finalized. It will identify specific 

partner commitments for implementing the strategy. 

4 

• District of Columbia 

• Delaware 

• Maryland 

• NewYork 

• Pennsylvania 

a Virginia 

• West Virginia 

• U.S Environmental Protection Agency 

D Chesapeake Bay Commission 

• U.S. Geological Survey 
130 


26784.116

Local Engagement 

The Bay TMDL document, which describes an accountabllity framework including the 2017 and 2025 

W!P outcomes, was developed through a highly transparent and engaging process. The outreach effort 

included hundreds of meetings with interested groups; two rounds of public meetings, stakeholder 

sessions and media interviews in all Bay watershed jurisdictions in fall of 2009 and 2010; a dedicated 

EPA website; a series of monthly interactive webinars; notices published in the Federal Register; EPA 

response to all TMDL comments; and a close working relationship with CBP committees representing 

citizens, local governments, and the scientific community. lt was at the discretion oft he Bay watershed 

jurisdictions to hold their own public meetings and public comment period for their respective WIPs, as 

these were state*developed documents6 . 

A substantial portion of the nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment controls necessary to meet the Bay 

TMDL allocations is expected to be implemented at the local level by CBP partners including 

conservation districts, local governments, planning commissions, utilities and watershed associations. 

Outreach to a variety of local entities may help the CBP partners assess and determine the ideal scale at 

which implementation will be reflected in the CBP modeling tools and where appropriate, quantify local 

target loads within the W!Ps. The CBP partnership recognizes that individual jurisdictions may pursue 

somewhat different approaches to this local outreach. 

IV. Factors Influencing Success 

The following are natural and human factors that influence the Partnership's ability to attain this 

outcome: 

Implementation of Practices 

1. Continuing to sustain the capacity of governments and the private sector to implement practices 

The state and local jurisdictions have described their capacity (funding, authorities, and sustainability) 

to implement nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment reduction practices several times over the past 

two decades. These include the tributary strategies developed during the 1990s and again in the 

mid*2000s, and more recently, in the Phase I and Phase II WIPs and two*year milestones, which also 

include strategies to build capacity in order to achieve pollutant reductions. Federal agencies and land 

holders have described their capacity (funding, authorities, and sustainability) to implement nitrogen, 

phosphorus and sediment reduction practices through the programs they administer or on the lands 

that they control as part of Executive Order 135087

• These entities must continue to work towards 

sustaining adequate capacity necessary to complete the efforts. 

5 
131 


26784.117

Chesapeake Bay Management Strategy 

2017 WIP~ 2025 WIP and Water Quality Standards Attainment 

& Monitoring Outcomes 

2. Delivering the necessary financial capacity to implement practices and programs 

Both understanding and addressing the financial capacity needs to implement the Phase I WIPs, the 

Phase II WIPs and two-year milestones is an integral component to achieving the water quality goals 

in the Bay TDML. The CBP partnership is focused on addressing these financial needs through: 

quantification of existing and potential funding gaps, and the identification of new revenue sources 

and financing to address these gaps; consideration of how costs might be reduced by more cost· 

effectively reallocating nutrient and sediment reductions among source sectors; evaluation of BMP 

implementation and maintenance costs; and communication of funding needs to elected officials. 

improved Technical Information 

1. Improving the Identification of sources and their contributions to nitrogen, phosphorus and 

sediment pollutant loads 

The sources and their respective contribution of loads listed in the Bay TMDL is currently 

represented through CBP partnership models3

, USGS SPARROW models!\ and supporting tidal and 

nontidal monitoring networks and research. As described in the Bay TMDL document (Chapter4), 

the sources that are modeled by the CBP partnership are based on U.S. Census Bureau and USDA 

Census data, federal and state permitting data, satellite imagery and additional data submitted by 

the seven Bay watershed jurisdictions. As part of the Bay TMDL's midpoint assessment, the CBP 

partnership is currently incorporating additional/more recent local/and use data, refining 

information on the transport of loads through the Bay watershed, and better predicting future 

impacts of population growth and climate change in the Bay watershed for incorporation into the 

modeling tools to improve implementation planning in Phase IlL 

2. Quantifying the reductions from pollution control practices and verifying their continued 

performance 

The pollution reduction values associated with nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment controls that the 

CBP partnership has approved for use in the models are based on extensive literature reviews and 

expert panel recommendations. Through its technical source sector workgroups and expert panels, 

the Water Quality Goal implementation Team10 (WQGIT) periodically refines these values based on 

new information and to take into account innovative practices. The CBP partnership is addressing 

the effectiveness and efficiency of practices by adopting principles to verify that reported practices 

are, indeed, in place and functioning as designed; further quantifying the effect of variations in 

watershed properties (such as different types of soils) on controls; quantifying changes in Best 

Management Practices (BMP) performance over time; and evaluating the potential future impacts 

of climate change on BMP performance. 

In addition, the Chesapeake Bay basinwide BMP verification framework provides a structure by 

which the Bay Program partners will improve consistency through a collective analysis of the 

8 CBP modeling tools: fill2_:f~~Yc.\:.h.?.~J1.ll_~g.f5.tQs/.Jco.£t;/2.flQ.i!JlP..i!29.m.rrlliwotershed implementation plan tools/ 9 USGS SPARROW model: A modeling tool for the regional interpretation of water quality monitoring data. 

http://woteLusqs.qav!nawqo/sparrowL 

10 lillid/J:t}1'.'tt.ofil~'>_q[!f''--q.f.J:tt!Qk'.c'Lf;'.t/...ill:9.YP.d.flLQYP}11(QtRLQYs!Ji~L.Y£Qf_@plf.m£!Jlg.tJQILTeom 

6 
132 


26784.118

effectiveness and efficiency of various BMPs. Verification will be viewed as a life cycle process, 

including initial inspection, follow up checks, and evaluation of BMP performance 11 , 

3. Enhancing the next generation of decision support tools {Phase 6} 

The CBP partnership is currently revising the watershed modeling system structure to enhance 

decision support and to improve accuracy, transparency and confidence. The Phase 6 suite of 

decision support tools will be refined in many ways, including the addition of simulation years, 

monitoring stations and updated BMP efficiencies. 

4. Revisiting watershed model calibration methods with the goal of improving local watershed results 

Different calibration methods will be assessed for the calibration of flow, sediment and nutrients; a 

precipitation data set for the entire Phase 6 simulation period from 1985 to 2011 will be developed, 

applied and calibrated; new calibration stations allowed by the expansion of the simulation period 

will be applied and calibrated; and assessment in the changes that are due only to the change in the 

hydrology calibration will be quantified and documented. 

5. Reviewing and updating historical implementation data that has been submitted by the 

jurisdictions to the CBP partnership, confirming that BMPs are still in place and ensuring that 

accurate information is included in the modeling tools 

Information on BMP implementation that is accurate as possible is integral to calibrating the Phase 6 

Watershed Model; planning and reporting on future actions; using monitoring data to assess 

impacts of past efforts, since understanding the factors affecting observed trends in water quality 

requires a clear understanding of what actions have been implemented over time; and assessing the 

critical period of 1993~1995 12 • 

Response of Water Quality Conditions to Management Practices 

1. Understanding the factors affecting the ecosystem response to pollutant load reductions to focus 

management efforts and strategies 

Based on the current science and the associated CBP modeling system, the CBP partnership has 

projected that implementing practices for reducing nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads should 

achieve applicable water quality standards in the Bay. Improved understanding of the following 

elements could further enhance decision-making for the Phase Ill W!Ps: {1) the factors affecting the 

time it will take to see improvements (i.e., "lag times") between implementation of practices and 

responses in water quality; (2) factors in addition to nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment pollutant 

load reduction that affect response of DO, clarity, SAV and chlorophyll; (3) the relationships 

between water quality improvements and the recovery of habitat conditions for fish and shellfish 

populations; (4) how population changes and economic influences impact restoration activlties; 

(5) the effects of climate change due to increased temperatures and sea level rise in the estuary; 

(6) how increases in plant and animal biomass in response to improved water quality improves the 

assimilative capacity of the system for nutrients and sediment; and {7) an improved understanding 

of uncertainty associated with model projections. 

7 
133 


26784.119

Chesapeake Bay Management Strategy 

2017 WIP~ 2025 WIP and Water Quofity Standards Attainment 

& Monitoring Outcomes 

2. Factoring in effects from continued climate change 

EPA and other partners are developing the tools to quantify the effects of changes in watershed 

flows, storm intensity and changes in hypoxia due to increased temperatures and sea level rise in 

the estuary. Current efforts are to frame an initial future climate change scenario based on 

estimated 2050 conditions. The CBP partnership will need to decide if or when to incorporate these 

climate change considerations into the Phase Ill W!Ps. 

3. Assessing the implementation potential of filter feeders for nutrient and sediment reductions 

living resource restoration was not considered in the Bay TMOL because low filter feeder biomass 

was insufficient to influence water quality, and because of future biomass uncertainty due to 

harvest, disease and lack of habitat. Since then, significant oyster restoration has occurred and more 

is planned, as well as a recent resurgence of aquaculture in the Chesapeake Bay. The oyster model 

will be revised as necessary to incorporate aquaculture operations and additional oyster biomass 

brought about by restoration activities including sanctuaries. 

4. Examining the impact the lower Susquehanna dams have on the pollutant loads to the Bay, 

including changes over time 

The CBP partnership will work with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lower Susquehanna River 

Watershed Assessment {LSRWA) study and the STAR midpoint assessment work plan for the 

assessment of trapping capacity behind dams, especially the Conowingo, as well as greater 

representation of local impoundments and reservoirs throughout the Phase 6 Watershed Model. 

The CBP partnership will need to address how to reduce the level of impairment in the Chesapeake 

Bay due to Conowingo. 

S. Conducting a detailed multi~year assessment of chlorophyll in the tidal James River using 

augmented monitoring and modeling approaches 

The CBP partnership is working closely with the principal investigators of the James River 

chlorophyll-a criteria assessment to determine the criteria necessary in order to meet water quality 

standards in the James River. Criteria could change by becoming more stringent, less stringent or 

existing criteria is confirmed. 

V. Current Efforts and Gaps 

The Phase I and Phase !I W!Ps and two-year milestones include descriptions of efforts currently 

underway or planned to improve tracking, reporting, and assessing the effectiveness of implementation 

actions. In addition, the Bay watershed jurisdictions are in the process of developing new and revising 

existing BMP tracking, verification, and reporting protocols and programs, As the CBP tracks partners' 

progress toward goals for cleaner waters, verifying that practices are being implemented correctly and 

are reducing nutrient and sediment pollution as expected will be critical in measuring success. EPA, the 

Bay watershed jurisdictions, local governments, the private sector and nongovernmental organizations 

will use these data to inform accountability and adaptive decision-making, and redirect management 

actions and resources. Specific efforts include the use of the National Environmental Information 

Exchange Network (NE!EN) to seamlessly exchange information between existing federal, state or 

8 
134 


26784.120

district databases and the suite of CBP dedslon support tools. Tracking data and models will be used, 

along with ambient monitoring data, to assess WIP and milestone commitments and progress. 

The W!Ps also evaluate the current legal, regulatory, programmatic, financial, staffing and technical 

capacity to deliver the implementation of redw:;tions sufficient to achieve the target loads in the Bay 

TMDL. As part of their evaluation, the Bay watershed jurisdictions considered whether additional 

reductions could be achieved with existing capacity (funding, authorities and sustainability). The 

evaluation of existing capacity includes programs and rules, a comprehensive assessment of current 

point source permitting/treatment upgrade schedules and funding programs, non point source control 

funding, existing permitting and incentive~based programs and regulations. 

The jurisdictions and EPA, through the WIPs and evaluations of the W!Ps, respectively, identified gaps 

between their current capacity and the capacity they estimate is necessary to fully attain the interim 

and final nutrient and sediment target loads for each of the 92 segments of the Bay TMDL Such gaps 

that the jurisdictions continue to address include: 

• Financial capacity to oversee and implement MS4 and other stormwater programs 

• Financial, technical and regulatory capacity to deliver priority conservation practices to priority 

watersheds 

• BMP tracking, verification and reporting programs 

Necessary new capacity to address these capacity gaps and others includes additional incentives, new or 

enhanced state or local regulatory programs, market-based tools, technical or financial assistance and 

new legislative authorities. It also includes capacity from other federal agencies, local governments, the 

private sector and/or non-governmental organizations. 

The Bay watershed jurisdictions are expected to discuss plans to work with federal, local, private sector 

and nonprofit partners to leverage capacity for achieving interim and final load targets. The WIP's 

identify contingency strategies in the event that actions by those partners, or by the jurisdictions, do not 

occur. For example, if an enhanced cost-share program does not yield adequate participation and 

compliance rates, a jurisdiction might pursue the development of enhanced authorities or new 

regulations to control loadings from that same source sector or another source sector. 

The Bay watershed jurisdictions are now focused on implementation of management practices 

identified in their WIPs and two~year mil~stones. Federal agencies also are focused on implementing 

their Executive Order strategies and two~year milestones. Some of the WIP' commitments and 

contingencies include: 

B Committing to more stringent nitrogen and phosphorus limits at wastewater treatment plants, 

including on the James River in Virginia. {Virginia, New York, Delaware, District of Columbia) 

B Pursuing state legislation to fund wastewater treatment plant upgrades, urban stormwater 

management and agricultural programs. {Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia) 

• Implementing a progressive stormwater permit to reduce pollution. (District of Columbia) 

• Conservation districts throughout the Bay watershed wB! conduct farm visits to inform farmers 

of their regulatory requirements and help farmers identify ways they can improve conservation 

methods on their properties. (Pennsylvania) 

9 
135 


26784.121

Chesapeake Bay Management Strategy 

2017 W!P7 2025 WIP crnd Water Quality Standards Attainment 

& Monitoring Outcomes 

• Investing in a Regional Agricultural Watershed Assessment Program to inspect farms and assist 

farmers in meeting their regulatory requirements for planning and installation of BMPs, 

{Pennsylvania) 

• Committing to pollution reduction pl<1ns as part of the MS4 permitting process. {Pennsylvania) 

• Considering implementation of mandatory programs for agriculture if pollution reductions fall 

behind schedule. (Delaware, Maryland, Virginia) 

Additional policies, programs, or actions include: 

• Enforceable or otherwise binding commitments that controls will be, or are already being, 

implemented and maintained, 

• Permits or contracts with quantifiable limits and milestones that the jurisdictions can 

demonstrate are consistent with the BayTMDl's wasteload and load allocations. 

• Estimates of the necessary resources (funds, technical assistance, permit reviewers, inspectors) 

to support implementation and maintenance of practices. 

• Documentation of historic participation and compliance rates associated with existing programs 

and practices and successful nutrient and sediment management efforts, 

There are several current efforts to address the water quality standards attainment and monitoring 

outcome. The CBP oversees the tidal and nontidal monitoring networks, which are used to (1) assess in 

tidal waters relative to established water quality standards and (2) measure nitrogen, phosphorus and 

sediment in the watershed to help determine if practices are reducing loads to the Bay and in the 

watershed. The tidal monitoring network is a cooperative effort between EPA, MD and VA The 

watershed monitoring is a partnership between USGS, EPA, and aU seven Bay watershed jurisdictions. 

The primary monitoring gaps include (1) more frequent measures of dissolved oxygen to assess criteria 

attainment and (2) more localized monitoring in watershed areas to assess effects of BMPs. The CBP 

water quality monitoring is coordinated through STAR and more information on the networks and 

efforts to address the gaps are in the Management Approach and Monitoring Progress sections ofthis 

document. 

VI. Management Approaches 

The CBP partnership will work together to carry out the following actions and strategies to achieve the 

water quality goals. These approaches seek to address the f21ctors affecting our ability to meet the goal 

and the gaps identified above. 

Phase I WIPs, Phase II WIPs and Two* Year Milestones 

The overall management approach needed for reducing nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment are 

provided in the Bay TMDL document> the Phase I and II WIPs, and the accountabllity framework. which 

is described in the Bay TMDL document and Executive Order 13508. The Bay watershed jurisdictions 

committed to meet the interim (2017) and final {2025) target loads for nutrients and sediment in the 

Bay through their respective WIPs. The Phase !!I W!Ps will describe how the seven Bay watershed 

jurisdictions, in collaboration with local partners, will refine, as necessary, the actions and controls that 

will be implemented between 2018 and 2025 to meet their final load reduction targets. Attainment of 

10 
136 


26784.122

final target loads across the watershed is expected to result in the achievement of all applicable 

nutrient- and sediment-related water quality standards in the Bay and its tidal tributaries. 

Chesapeake Bay TMDL Accountability Framework 

The Bay TMDl is supported by a rigorous accountability framework to ensure cleanup commitments are 

established and met, including W!Ps, short and long-term benchmarks (such as two-year milestones), a 

tracking and accountability system for jurisdictions' activities and federal contingency actions that may 

be employed if jurisdictions do not meet their milestone and W!P commitments. Federal agencies are 

directed by Executive Order 13508 to consutt with the seven Bay watershed jurisdictions to ensure that 

federal actions to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay are closely coordinated with those actions by 

state and local jurisdictions in the watershed. The federal agencies have developed an Executive Order 

Strategy to outline ways to accomplish that goa!. EPA and other federal agencies will also continue to 

develop water quality two-year milestones. This includes USDA which will report in the biennial 

workplan on their plans and progress in applying new conservation practices in high priority watersheds. 

Although the accountability framework ls not part of the Bay TMDL, Sections 7 and 10 of the Bay TMDL 

document describe how the accountability framework helps provide reasonable assurance that the 

needed pollutant reductions will occur and how ad.aptive management can be used as a tool to 

implement those pollutant reductions within the .accountability framework, 

As part of its efforts to carry out the Bay TMDL accountability framework, EPA interacts with the 

jurisdktions directly and through the CBP's WQGIT and its associated source sector workgroups. The 

WQGIT workgroups are focused on supporting the reduction of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment 

pollutant loads from key sources described in Section 4 of the Bay TMDL: wastewater, agriculture, urban 

storm water, septic systems, forests and ale EPA also works with the jurisdictions and the WQGlT on 

issues associated with two-year milestones, offsets and water quality trading. The WQGIT is supported 

by the CBP STAR team, which contains the modeling and monitoring workgroups, and other Goal 

Implementation Teams, as necessary. The CBP partnership's models are used to assistthejurisdictions 

11 
137 


26784.123

Chesapeake Bay Management Strategy 

2017 WJP, 2025 WIP and Water Quality 5tandar0s Attainment 

& Monitoring Outcomes 

in assessing different options for management practices in the formulation of their WIPs and two~year 

milestone commitments. 

Enhancing Monitoring 

To address the factors affecting achievement of the water quality outcomes, several efforts have been 

undertaken. The STAR team has set up a project to better measure and explain progress toward water 

quality improvements, This project will generate and improve understanding of the factors affecting 

system response {the Bay and its watershed) to implementation of management practices. STAR (under 

the CBP Modeling Workgroup) is also pursuing with the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee 

(STAC) approaches to reduce uncertainties for models. Additional efforts to enhance monitoring are 

described in the Monitoring Progress section of this document 

Bay TMDL's 2017 Midpoint Assessment 

There are several other programmatic, management and implementation efforts underway to help 

achieve attainment of the water quality outcomes. These efforts are being addressed under the Bay 

TMOL's 2017 midpoint assessment. The Bay TMDL document calls for an assessment in 2017 to review 

our progress toward meeting the nutrient and sediment pollutant load reductions identified in the 2010 

Bay TMDL, Phase I and II WIPs and two~year milestones. 

The midpoint assessment provides the partnership with the opportunity to step back and assess how 

the BayTMDl and WIP implementation are making a difference, if it's all working as intended, and if 

there's a better way we can implement our priorities and achieve our goals. The ultimate goal is to make 

implementation more streamlined and the challenges to implementation more understandable for the 

CBP partnership as we move toward 2017 and 2025. 

The WQGIT, STAR, the source sector workgroups and the Modeling Workgroup have developed worl< plans 

to guide their efforts under each of the midpoint assessment priorities. Those work plans can be accessed 

here: l:lll.QJ.L'?£.\tL..lJ.L,_cJl£.>i<:!Rfakel]i<y.net/gro..v!!.:'dK!:.<l!.!2l~i!!~~.!!.Y __ G_p~~!!:l.grt.tJ.tiQD _ _Team. 

Approaches Targeted to Local Participation 

12 

a Much of the implementation of the pollution reduction practices, as articulated in the Bay TMOL 

and the WIPs, will be carried out at the local leveL This includes municipalities, counties, soil and 

water conservation districts and local private sector groups and individuals, Therefore, 

management approaches should be designed to include timely dialogue with the responsible 

local agencies and other partners, taking into consideration funding and technical support 

required by these local partners. 

• The CBP partnership is currently exploring how to express programmatic and implementation 

goals atthe local level in the Phase 6 modeling tools {including CAST/MAST/VAST/BayFAST) as 

part of the midpoint assessment. 

B The collection of refined land use and land cover data from the local jurisdictions for 

incorporation into the Phase 6 modeling tools is intended to improve the representation of 

urban, agricultural, federal and natural lands at the local scale. 

• Recent investments by the CBP in Citizen Science will help inform management and d-ecision~ 

makers with monitoring assessments, including the effects of management activities. The 
138 


26784.124

expansion of Citizen Science will provide key data for evaluating the work of the management 

strategies to understand the progress we are making, what gaps remain, and what steps are 

needed to fill those gaps. 

Cross-Outcome Collaboration and Multiple Benefits 

• State and local jurisdictions could target tile implementation of actions that not only result in 

water quality benefits, but address other impairments (e.g. bacteria or toxic contaminants), 

environmental problems (e.g. til reate ned or endangered species}, safety concerns {e.g. flooding, 

infrastructure) and 2014 Agreement Outcomes (e.g. wetlands, forest buffers) as welL The CBP 

partnership is currently exploring the development of an optimization tool for TMOL 

implementation purposes, but this tool could potentially capture a broader range of ecosystem 

benefits beyond water quality to help inform decision making in our restoration efforts. 

VII. Monitoring Progress 

2017 WIP Outcome 

Practices: Since 2010, the CBP partnership solicits BMP implementation data from the jurisdictions. The 

WQGITWatershed Technical Workgroup is responsible for assisting jurisdictions in developing, 

understanding and submitting data through the NElEN system. EPA's reporting system, the Bay Tracking 

and Accounting System, or BayTAS, is used to track progress toward meeting Bay TMDL allocations, 

WQGIT members have been actively involved in the development of BayTA5. Chesapeake5tat13 is a CBP 

partnership website that publicly sh<~res information on indicators, strategies and funding including the 

BayTAS data, BMP implementation data reported through NEIEN and any other numerical data used for 

assessing progress towards CBP partnership water quality goals. The CBP partnership is working with the 

jurisdictions and federal partners to improve verification of reported nutrient and sediment controls. 

The WQGIT also adopted a protocol for reviewing the effectiveness of nutrient and sediment controls, 

or BMPs, based on an evaluation by expert panels and a review of the best available literature and data. 

Expert panels evaluating the effectiveness of controls are underway in order to inform tile CBP 

partnership as to whether it is appropriate/necessary to modify existing, or approve new, nutrient and 

sediment controls and how the implementation oftllose controls are accounted for by the CBP 

partnership modeling tools. 

Modeled Loads: The CBP partners use a suite of computer models to project pollutant loads and flow. 

The CBP modeling framework is designed to address questions of how Chesapeake Bay water quality will 

respond to changes in watershed and airshed management actions, which can inform decision-making 

for reducing pollution and meeting applicable water quality standards. These modeling tools are also 

used to track and quantify nutrient and sediment loads as WIP implementation progresses. The 

estimated modeled loads, together with relevant monitoring data, will be used to track progress with 

achieving the 2017 (and 2025) W!P outcome. USGS and the modeling workgroup are currently 

developing techniques to better compare modeled nutrient and sediment load data with that of 

monitored loads. 

13 
139 


26784.125

Chesa-peake Bav Management Strategy 

2017 WIP, 1025 WfP and Water Quality Standards Attainment 

& Monitoring Outcomes 

2025 WIP Outcome 

Midpoint Assessment: !n addition to assessing progress towards meeting the 2017WIP outcome, the 

midpoint assessment wi!l also include an evaluation of the current science to inform and improve the 

implementation strategies in the Phase Ul W!Ps. The midpoint assessment includes the enhancement of 

the modeling tools by the CBP partners, led by the Modeling Workgroup, to incorporate the latest 

science. Specifica!!y, the Modeling Workgroup is charged with revising the watershed modeling system 

structuretoimprovetransparency,accuracyandconfidence.lmprovedaccuracy,inparticu!ar, 

encompasses the incorporation of more refined local land use data. 

Water Quality Standards Attainment & Monitoring Outcome 

The CSP has extensive tidal and nontidal monitoring networks, which are used to \1) measure nitrogen, 

phosphorus and sediment in the watershed; (2) assess conditions in tidal waters relative to established 

water quality standards; and (3) evaluate tidal habitat conditions and living resource populations and 

health. 

!n addition, two types of air deposition are monitored dai~ and tr<!cked through the CBP models, The 

first is wet deposition, which occurs during precipitation events and cantributes only to nitrogen loads 

during days of rain or snow, The other is dry deposition, which occurs continuously and is input at a 

constant rate daily into the Br~y Watershed and Bay Water Quality models, 

The CBP partnership also has a basinwide reporting process for tracking implementation of management 

practices. Many of these monitoring and assessment activities are coordinated through and provided by 

the CBP's STAR team and partner science entities, The CBP partnership, through STAC, conducted a 

review of its monitoring programs in 2009 to better align efforts with the implementation of the Bay 

TMOland W!Ps and plans for future evaluation to determine if changes in the monitoring programs are 

needed and to address the goal teams' needs, findings from this 2009 review will be used to improve 

CBP model simulations to inform the development of the Bay jurisdictions' Phase Ill WIPs by 2018. 

STAR is working with the WQGIT to develop an approach to integrate three key pieces of related water 

quality information to better assess and communicate progress toward the Bay TMDl and associated 

waterqua!itystandardsincluding: 

14 

• Reductions of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment by source, jurisdiction and overall load 

reduction assoctated with the implementation of BMPs. These load reductions are estimates 

from the CBP models based on BMP implementation data submitted by the jurisdictions, 

I Changes of in~stream nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment concentrations and loads as estimated 

by flow·adjusted trends of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment. These estimates show long-term 

(25year) and shorter term (lOyear) changes by normalizing the annual effects of streamflow 

variabllity. The normalized estimates are based on monitoring data collected as part of the CBP 

nontidalwaterctua!itymonitoringprogram. 

I Attainment of Chesapeake water quaHty standards for dissolved oxygen, chlorophy!!·a, water 

clarity/SAY standards. Attainment of these standards is based primarily on results from the CBP 

tidal water quality monitoring program. 
140 


26784.126

The WQGIT and STAR also are enhancing the monitoring and analysis to address the factors affecting 

annual loads, responses in living resources, and efforts underway to improve monitoring programs, 

including: 

Water Quality Monitoring System understanding: The CBP partnership conducts annual monitoring 

ofriverflowtothe Bay to help explain yearly changes in DO, darity/SAV, and chlorophyll~a 

conditions. Living resources monitoring is used to assess changes in populations of lower trophic 

levels {SAV and invertebrates) and fisheries {crabs, oysters and selected finfish species) that are 

dependent on habitat conditions. The CBP nontlda! water quality monitoring program monitors 

nutrient and sediment at 125 sites in the watershed to help document and understand the factors 

affecting the response to management practices. The WQGIT and STAR intend to: 

• Enhance analysis of tidal monitoring data to assess progress toward water quality standards. 

• Expand the small watershed monitoring network and assessment of data to better evaluate 

BMP efficiency. 

• Monitor shallow groundwater to understand the effect of septic systems on water quality. 

• Consider monitoring shallow groundwater to better understand contribution to surface~water 

loads and response time between BMP implementation and water quality improvements. 

• Conduct an analysis of water quality changes to better understand and explain the factors 

affecting water quality response to BMPs and report findings. This analysis will evaluate how 

nutrient and sediment transport cause lag times between implementing practices and water 

quality changes. This analysis will build on the USGS report on lessons learned about water 

quality improvements {2014 New Insights report). 

Monitored Loads and Trends: The CBP partners and USGS operate the River-Input Stations to 

monitor and help assess annual loads of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment to the Bay which are 

used to explain changes in estuary water quality conditions. New techniques are being developed to 

improve comparison between the nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment load data collected from the 

monitoring stations to TMDL allocations, which were established using the modeling tools. These 

techniques wllf be Implemented at additional sites in the CBP nontidal network where possible. 

VIII. Assessing Progress 

The CBP accountability framework provides the foundation to assess progress towards the Bay TMDL 

and associated water quality standards. The CBP partnership would be consulted on any proposed 

changes to the WJP Planning Targets, which provide for the watershed~wlde distribution of load 

reductions. This is separate from any nitrogen~phosphorus and/or cross-basin exchanges within a state, 

which are the responsibility of that jurisdiction. Enhanced knowledge of management practices and 

their effects will be used primarily to refine individual jurtsdlctlon strategies to achieve the 2017 and 

2025 goals. 

2017 WIP Outcome 

EPA will assess the jurisdictions' progress toward reaching the Bay TMDL's ultimate nitrogen, 

phosphorus and sediment reduction goals at least biennially using the jurisdictions' two~year 

milestones commitments. Every two years 1 the jurisdictions are expected to identify and commit to 

15 
141 


26784.127

Chesapeake Bay Management Strategy 

201"' WlP, 2025 WJP and Water Quality Standards Attainment 

& Monitoring Outcomes 

implement specific pollutant-reduction controls and actions in each of their successive two-year 

milestone periods. Under the Executive Order, the federal government also has been committing to 

two-year milestones. EPA will measure progress towards achieving the 2017 and 2025 WIP 

outcomes annually by running implementation data collected from the jurisdictions through the CBP 

partnership's modeling tools. 

When assessing two-year milestone commitments, EPA evaluates whether proposed actions, 

controls and practices would result in estimated loads at the jurisdiction scale that will put the 

jurisdiction on track towards meeting its 2017 and 2025 goals. EPA uses the reported BMP data and 

the Chesapeake Say Watershed Model to assess the jurisdictions' progress towards meeting the 

target allocations. EPA also assesses the jurisdictions' and Federal Agencies' progress towards 

meeting its programmatic milestones (e.g., promulgation of new laws, implementation of 

regulations, policy development, permit issuance, compliance and enforcement commitments, etc.} 

at least biennially. 

2025 WIP Outcome 

As part of the midpoint assessment, EPAwlll be evaluating the progress towards meeting the 2017 

and 2025 goals established in the Bay TMDL document, The CBP partnership will use this midpoint 

assessment of progress to determine if the 2017 WIP outcome in this management strategy has 

been achieved. 

This midpoint assessment not only encompasses a review of the implementation of the jurisdictions' 

WIPs and milestones but also water quality monitoring, modeling and decision~support tools utilized 

by the CBP partnership. The intent is that this assessment will strengthen and enhance the 

partnership's decision support capabilities used to develop the implementation plans and strategies 

in Phase Ill for meeting our shared objective in restoring the Chesapeake Bay. 

Water Quality Standards Attainment and Monitoring Outcome 

16 

The CBP partnership will enhance the analysis and explanation of monitoring information as part of 

the Bay TMDl's midpoint assessment. The CBP partners have endorsed (PSC, May 2012) an 

integrated approach that includes three primary pieces of information to measure progress toward 

water quality standards: 

a Reporting of water quality management practices. 

• Analyzing trends of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment in the watershed. 

• Assessing attainment of dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll and water clarity/SAV standards, 

The integrated approach to quantify and explain water quality trends in the Bay and its watershed 

relies on monitoring information, enhanced BMP implementation data and use of several analytical 

tools (including statistical tools, CBP Watershed Model and estua!"y models, USGS SPARROW model 

and groundwater models). The following activities will be coordinated through the CBP STAR team 

and interaction with the WQGJT: 

a Analyze water quality trends in the Bay and its watershed. 

• E)( plain the factors affecting water quality trends in Bay and its watershed. 

• Enhance CBP models using the improved understanding of trends. 
142 


26784.128

• Inform management strategies to improve water quality. 

IX. 

The Partnership will use the following approaches to ensure adaptive management: 

In a dynamic environment like the Bay watershed, changes during the next 15 years are inevitable. It 

may be possible to accommodate those changes within the existing Bay TMDL framework without 

the need to revise it in whole, or in part. The CBP partnership has committed to take an adaptive 

management approach to the Bay TMDL and incorporate new scientific understandings into the 

implementation planning in two-year milestones and in Phase Ill following the midpoint assessment. 

Future adjustments to WlPs and two-year milestones based on changJng conditions and the 

availability of new information is consistent with the CBP's concept of adaptive management. 

The CBP partnership will continue to examine the following questions to address implementation 

challenges and opportuniUes, incorporate new data and scientific understandings and refine 

decision support tools and management strategies toward the achievement of the water quality 

outcomes in the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement: 

• What progress had been made in implementing practices for the Bay TMDL? 

• What are the changes in water quality and progress toward applicable water quality standards? 

• What are we learning about the factors affecting water quality changes to better implement 

practices? 

a What refinements are needed in decision support tools, monitoring and science? 

• How do we best consider the combined impacts of land change and climate variability {storm 

events and k>ng-term change) on ntJtrient and sediment loading and implications for the Bay 

TMDL? 

X. Biennial Workplan 

Biennial work plans for each management strategy will be developed by Aprll2016. The 2017 WIP, 2025 

WIP and Water Quality Standards Attainment & Monitoring Outcomes. Workplan Js expected to include 

the following information: 

• Each key action 

• Timeline for the action 

R Expected outcome 

• Partners responsible for each action 

• Estimated resources 

In 2008, the Chesapeake Executive Council charged the seven Bay watershed jurisdictions to develop a 

two~year milestone process for redudngthelr respective nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment 

contributions to the Chesapeake Bay and to track the pace of those reductions. Two-year milestones are 

short-term objectives under the Bay TMDl accountability fre~mework used to assess progress towards 

restoration goals while allowing jurisdictions to flexibly adapt their WlPs to meet those goals. The twoyear milestones will serve as the biennial workplan for this management strategy as they represent key 

17 
143 


26784.129

Chesapeake Bay Management Strategy 

2017 WIP~ 2025 WIP and Water Quality Standards Attainment 

& Monitoring Outcomes 

check-in points on the way to having all pollution reduction measures in place by 2025 to restore the 

Bay and its tidal waters, with controls in place by 2017 that would achieve 60 percent of the necessary 

reductions. 

The Bay jurisdictions' 2014-2015 milestones are expected to reduce phosphorus by nearly 2.4 million 

pounds and decrease sediment by more than 1.1 billion pounds by the end of 20151 compared to the 

2009 baseline. The jurisdictions' 2014-2015 milestones are expected to reduce nitrogen by nearly 25 

million pounds, but an additional reduction of nearly 6 million pounds is needed to remain on track to 

meet the ZD17 target14-.The Bay jurisdictions' two-year milestones and EPA's evaluations ofthese 

commitments and assessment of progress can b€ accessed here: 

h!!]:ljwww.epa.gov/reg3w...t"lJ21li!rD.9JLr-hesapE!ake8§.¥£!}§19.@.@nUnderway.htmJ. This management 

strategy will be updated as these evaluations occur. 

18 
144 


26784.130

2 0 1 4 
145 


26784.131

VISION 

The Chesapeake Bay Program partners envision an environmentally 

and economically sustainable Chesapeake Bay watershed with clean 

water, abundant 

vibrant cultural 

conserved lands and access' to the water, a 

and a diversity of engaged citizms 

and stakeholders. 
146 


26784.132

PREAMBLE 

The Chesapeake Bay watershed is one of the most extraordinary places in America. 

spanning six states and the District of Columbia. As the nation's largest and most 

productive estuary, the Chesapeake Bay and its vast network of more than 180,000 

miles of streams, creeks and rivers, holds tremendous ecological, cultural, economic, 

historic and recreational value for the nearly 18 million people who live. work and play in 

the region. 

To restore and protect this national treasure, the 

Chesapeake Bay Program oartnersh1p (ttle "Partnership") 

was formed m 1983 when the Governors of Maryland, 

Virginia, Pennsylvania. the Mayor of the Distnct of 

Columbia, the Cha1r of the Chesapeake Bay CommiSSion 

and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

Agency signed the first Chesapeake Bay agreement. That 

1n1t1a! agreement recogniZed the "historical decltne of 

living resources'' m the Chesapeake Bay and committed 

to a cooperative approach to "fully address the extent. 

complexity and sources of pollutants entenng the Bay.'' 

For more than 30 years, !his regional Partnerst1ip nas 

become recognized as one of the nat1on's prem1er 

estuarine restoration efforts, implementing policies. 

engaging in scientific 1nvest1gat10n and coordmating 

actions among the states, the District of Columbia and 

the federal government 

The Chesapeake Bay Program partners !lave made 

much progress m that t1me. but there IS more to doespecially m the face of continued 

changes in population, loss of farm and 

and changtng environmental condttions_ Through the 

2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement {the 

''Agreement"), the Partnership recomm1ts to ttle Bay 

watershed restoration effort based 1n and guided by 

sctence and the lessons learned from our expenences 

One of the most Important lessons the partners have 

learned from the past three decades is that although 

watershed-wide partnerships can help to coordinate 

and catalyze progress, implementatiOn happens locally 

Local governments are key partners in our work. as are 

Individual cttizens, businesses, watershed groups and 

other non-governmental organizations Work1ng together 

to engage, empower and facilitate these partners will 

leverage resources and ensure better outcomP-S 

The Partnership's experience with watershed restoration 

and protection efforts has shown that measurable 

results, coupled With firm accountability, ywld the most 

Significant results. The Partnership stands ready to 

embrace new ideas. tec!lnologies and policies that will 

help meet 1ts goals. The Partnership is committed to 

venfication and transparency of its actions to 

1ncrease public confidence in 1ts efforts. 

The 1983 Agreement la!d the foundation for a 

cooperat1ve program that Included four jurisdictions 

along with the Chesapeake Bay Commission and the 

federal government. Tllis new Agreement mcludes 

the seven junsdictiOns in the watershed, bnngmg New 

York, West Virgtnia and Delaware on board wit!! the 

original Signatories and making them full partners in 

the Chesapeake Bay Program and the Chesapeake 

Executive Council Due in part to a 2009 Presidential 

Executive Order, numerous federal agenc1es have 

also reaffirmed and augmented their longstanding and 

shared commitment to restonng and protecting the 

Chesapeake Bay. 

This Ci<esapeake Bay Watershed Agreement 

ach:nowledges that the Partnership cannot address 

every issue at once and that progress must be made 

111 a strateg1c manner. focusing on efforts that will 

achieve tlle most cost-effective results. Watershed 

restoration and protection have the potential to become 

1ntegra! dnvers of the region's economy. To that end. 

the Partnership IS committed to achieVIng restoration 

success whtle maximizing the economic benefitS to !oca! 

communities across the region. The signatories to this 

voluntary Agreement cornmit to achieving tile restoration 

and protection of the Chesapeake Bay watershed and 

1ts hvmg resources 
147 


26784.133

PRINCIPLES 

me an overct1;2~~ing frarnework by the Cc.esapeake 

coi!ective, core 

Part11ership develops 

THE PARTNERSHIP WILL: 

Collaborate to ach:eve the Gonls and 

Outcomes of thts Agreement 

• Achieve Goals and Outcomes :n a tnnely way 

and at the leust possible cost to ow c1t17er's 

Represent the interests of people throughou~ 

tloe watershed fa:rly and effect:vely. ''1Ciudtng 

a broad d1vers1iy of cultures. dH111091aphiCS 

and ages 

• Operate with transparency 1n progt·an~ 

deC1stons. poliCies. ac;,ons and 1GpO!IIf1Q en 

strerliJT!le;-1 

Use science-based decision~making 

and seek out Innovative technologies U'~d 

approacheS tO SUPOOI t SOLJr(j 

deciSIOns 1'l a char~g1ng system 

Maintain a coordinated watershed~wide 

monitoring and research program to suppor: 

dectsion-ITlaktn~J and track pro9tess ar:d the 

effect1veness of 

Acknowledge, support and embrace local 

governments a:1d o~her locat cnt1\tes II' 

watershed testotflllo;> and protectton 

O''CGnlpA~>S the; 

ir. (Jl1r work 

Goals Qt_;tcomes. 

Anticipate changing conditions, including 

ici~I[Herm trends tn sea !eve!. temperature. 

prec p1tat1on. !a•ld use and other variables 

Adaptlvely manage at ail levels of the 

r>mtnershtp to foster cont:nuous Improvement. 

Seek consensus when makmg dectsions 

Use place-based approaches, where 

aDDtopnate. that produce recogmzab!e 

to local comn;un:ties while 

co~1tnbuN1Q to larom ecosystem goals. 

Engage citizens to tPcrease the number 

and restoratton act1vit1es 

H">e Goals and Outcomes 

Explore using social science to betlet 

L,nderstand ancl measure !low human behavior 

ca•: dnvt: r>atural resource use. management 

dec;ston-rr.aking 

Promote environmental justice through the 

meantngful 1nvoivement snd fair treatment 

people. regardless of race, coloc national 

t)! tQiri or 1nr:orne. i11 -;l:e i!np!e:nentatton of this 

r\greement 
148 


26784.134

GOALS & 

OUTCOMES 

The commitments con-tained section are tho Go8ls and Outcomes that ti-]e 

signatories will work on collectively to advarcce restoration and protection of t!'e 

Chesapeake Bay ecosystem aod i:s waters'red. Tl1e Goals articulate tne desired 

level aspects of the partners' Visron. The Ou:comes related to each Goal are 

time-bound, measureable targets ihot o:rect!y con:ribL;tG to achieving that Goal. 

The Management Strategies further described 1n the 

next sect1on of this Agreement articulate the actions 

necessary to achieve the Goals and Outcomes 

This work will require effort from many, including ail 

levels of government, academic institutions, non~ 

governmental organizations, watershed groups, 

businesses and individual citizens. Local governmert 

will contmue to play a unique and cntica! role 1n 

helping the Partners!1ip realize thiS sllared V1S10n 

for the Chesapeake Bay. Signatories will participate 

in achieving the Outcomes of this Agreement in t!le 

manner described in the "Management Strategies 

Development and Implementation" section. 

While the Goals and Outcomes are descnbed by 

separate topic areas, the signatories recognize 

that they are interrelated Improvements in hab1tat 

and water quality lead to healthier liVing resources 

Environmentally literate citizens are rnore engaged 

stewards of the Chesapeake Bay·s [)ea!thywatersJ·leds 

Better water quality means sw1rnmable, fmhable 

waters for Bay residents and visitors Increased 

public access to the Bay inspires people to care for 

cntical landscapes and honor the reg1on·s heritage 

and culture. Healthy f1sh and she!!f1sh oop'"la!10ilS 

support a vibrant economy for a spectrum of fishing~ 

related industries. The signatories recognize that al! 

aspects of the ecosystem are connected and that 

these Goals and Outcomes support the healttl and 

the protection of the entire Bey wotersherl 

As !he signatories identity new opportunities and 

concerns, Goals or Outcomes may be adopted or 

mocl1f1ed. Any changes addit1ons to Goals will be 

approved by the Executive Counctl. The Principals' 

Staff Committee will approve changes or additions to 

Outcorrees, although Significant c11anges or addit~ons 

will be raised to the Executive Council for approvaL 

Proposed changes to Goals and Outcomes or the 

addition of new ones will be open for public input 

before be•ng flrl81ized_ F1na! changes or additions 

will be ava1!able on the Chesapeake Bay Program's 

webs1te 
149 


26784.135

GOALS & OUTCOMES 

SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 

Habitat loss, poor water quality. non-native and invasive species. taxies and fishing 

pressure continue to threaten the sustainability of the Chesapeake Bay's fisheries. 

Sustaining fish and shellfish populations contributes to a strong economy and maritime 

culture and supports a healthy ecosystem for all Bay watershed residents. 

Blue Crab 

Abundance 

Outcome 

Blue Crab 

Management 

Outcome 

GOAL: Protect, restore and enhance finfish, shellfish 

and other living resources, their habitats and ecological 

relationships to sustain all fisheries and provide for a 

balanced ecosystem in the watershed and Bay. 

Ma:ntain CJ SL:stsmable blue crab population based on the current 

2012 tacget 215 million adult females. Ref:ne population targets 

through 2025 baserl on best available sc:ence. 

Manaoe for a stetble and productive cmb fishery including working 

w:th the industry, recreational crabbers and other stakeholders to 

:mprove comrne1c:al and recreahonal harvest accountability. By 

2018. evaluate tile establishment of a Bay-w1de, a!!ocatlon-based 

managemem framework with annual levels set by the jurisdictions 

for tl~e pvroose of acco~:ntlng for and adjustil~Q harvest by each 

jurisdiction 

Oyster Outcome Conw~ually l';c:t·ease ftnf!s~l anc'J sllel!fis!l habitat and water quality 

henef1ts fr"'n1 res!oroff oyster populrtttOPS. Resrore nat1ve oyste1· 

habttat ond populatior~s in 10 tributaries by 2025 and ensure their 

pro!ect1on 

Forage Fish 

Ouwome 

Fish Habicat 

Outcome 

Con:inually i~prrM~ the Prutnership's capacity to understand the rote 

tho ChesapeAke Gay. By 2016, develop 

· 'r fura~]G base ava,lable as food for 

predJtory -spoctes 1n the Chesapeake Bay. 

Conlhually e:fecttve"ess of ftsll hs.bttat conservation 

and restoration efforts by identlfymg and c!laracteriztng critical 

soawntng, !lursmy cu~d forage areas wittm the Bay and tributaries 

for trnportam fd1 and shellfish. and use ex;sting and new tools to 

1ntegrate Information and conduct assessments to inform restoration 

and conservatton f-)fforts 
150 


26784.136

GOALS & OUTCOMES 

VITAL HABITATS 

Increasing needs for land and resources have resulted in fragmentation and degradation 

of many habitats across the watershed while also challenging the health of many Bay 

watershed species. Conserving healthy habitats and restoring the connectivity and 

function of degraded habitats is essential to the long-term resilience and sustainability 

of the ecosystem and the region's quality of life 

Wetlands 

Outcome 

Black Duck 

Stream Health 

Ou'Corne 

Brook Tmut 

GOAL: Restore, enhance and protect a network of land and 

water habitats to support fish and wildlife, and to afford other 

public benefits, including water quality, recreational uses and 

scenic value across the watershed. 

Cor;:H•uaily tncrease the caoac!0f of wetlands to provide water 

tbe watHshecL Create or 'eo: ttdal afld non-t1dal wetlands and enhance 

function ot ar ad(ilt10i~ai150,000 acres of degraded wetlands by 

2025 occur 1r ary land uso (including urban) 

By 202!i ;es;ore, er:hance arcl preserve wetland habitats that 

support a wlnierirg populntion of 100,000 black ducks. a species 

rcpresenwttve of the health of t1da! marshes across the watershed 

RGfmc oor_ulatlcn ta(gets through 2025 based on best available 

SCIBfKC 

Cot::Jnually irnpmve stream health afld fGnct1on throughout the 

v,ralershed Improve ltea!th and functior of ten percent of stream 

<rilles above the 2008 baseline for the Chesapeake Bay watershed 

Restore and susto.iP Pa.twal!y reproducing brook trout populations in 

Chesapeake lleadwmer streams Wltll an eight percent mcrease 1n 

occupied habttat by 2025 
151 


26784.137

GOALS & OUTCOMES 

VITAL HABITATS (CONTINUED) 

Fisl1 Passage 

Outcome 

Submerged 

Vegetation 

Ou:come 

Forest Buffer 

Outcome 

Tree Ca<'opy 

Ouccome 

GOAL: Restore, enhance and protect a network of land 

and water habitats to support fish and wildlife, and to afford 

other public benefits, including water quality, recreational 

uses and scenic value across the watershed. 

Con!inun!fy increase available habitat to support sustainable 

n~,gratocy fls:-, pc::p:ila~ions in Chesapeake Bay freshwater rivers and 

Ry ?0?5 restore h;stoncal fish m1gratory routes by openmg 

1 .000 uddilior8l miles, w1th restoration success indicated 

hy cons1slent presence of alew1te, blueback herring. American 

hickory shsd Americar: eel and brook trout, to be monitored 

1n Dcc:ordonce 1Ni~h avaJIEli)le n.gency "esources and collaboratively 

,,.,e:hvl:; 

halJ·tnt oenef1!s of SAV (underwater 

1r Chesm.:enke Bay. t-\ch1eve and sustain the ultimate 

ouco~nG of 1 B5,000 acres of SAV Bay-wtde necessary for a restored 

Bay ProCJress :oward th1S ultn-nate outcome will be measured against 

a taroet of 90.000 acres by 2017 and i 30.000 acres by 2025 

Continually increase the caoacity ot forest buffers to provide water 

qual1ty hal>llAt henef1ts throughout the watersherL Restore 900 

m1les per ycnr of n!)anan forest buffer and conserve existing buffers 

ur'tll least 70 percent ol riparian throughout the watershed 

forested 

Cort:r1uolly 1r1U0ase urhan tree canopy capa.clty to provide air 

a:Ki througircut tht~ watershed. 

::anopy by 2ADO acres by 2025 
152 


26784.138

GOALS & OUTCOMES 

WATER QUALITY 

Restoring the Bay's waters is critical to overall watershed restoration because clean 

water is the foundation for healthy fisheries, habitats and communities across the 

region. However excess amounts of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment in the Bay 

and its tributaries have caused many sections of the Bay to be listed as "impaired" 

under the Clean Water Act. The Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is 

driving nutrient and sediment reductions as described in the Watershed Implementation 

Plans (WIPs), adopted by the states and the District of Columbia, and establishes the 

foundation for water quality improvements embodied in this Agreement. These plans set 

nutrient and sediment reduction targets for various sources-stormwater, agriculture. air 

deposition, wastewater and septic systems 

GOAL: Reduce pollutants to achieve the water quality 

necessary to support the aquatic living resources of the Bay 

and its tributaries and protect human health. 

2017 Watershed 

Implementation 

Plans (WIP) Outcome 

2025 WIP 

Outcome 

Water Quality 

Standards 

Attainment and 

Monitoring Outcome 

By 2017. have practices and controls in place that are expected 

to achieve 60 percent of the nutrient and sediment pollution load 

reducttons necessary to nchieve applicable water quality standards 

compared to 2009 levels 

By 2025. have all practices and controls installed to achieve the 

Bay's dissolved oxygen. water clarity/submerged aquatic vegetation 

and cllloroplly!l a standards as articulated in the Chesapeake Bay 

TMDL document 

Continually improve the capacity to lY!Onitor and assess the eHects 

of management actlons be1ng undertaken to Implement t!1e Bay 

TMOL and 1m prove water quail!)!. Use the morHtonng results to report 

annually to the public on progress made in attaining establlshed 

Bay qualtty standards and trends in reducing nutrients and 

sed:men~ 1n the watershed 
153 


26784.139

GOALS & OUTCOMES 

TOXIC CONTAMINANTS 

Toxic contaminants harm fish and wildlife in the Bay and its watershed and create risks to 

human health that limit the amount of fish tl1at people can eat Reducing the impacts of 

toxic contaminants is critical to improve the health of fish and Wildlife. thereby improving 

their recreational value for citizens. 

GOAL: Ensure that the Bay and its rivers are free of effects of 

toxic contaminants on living resources and human health. 

Toxic Contaminants 

Researcn Outcome 

Toxic Coqtamir"arts 

Policy and Prever:ion 

Outcome 

Cont1r:uaily ircrease our understanding of ttle impacts and mitigation 

opt1ons for IOX!C contE~mir18nts. Develop a research agenda and 

funl10r characterize the occurrence. concentrations, sources and 

effects of ~'lercury. ~'CBs und other contaminants of emerging and 

widespread corcern In addition. identify which best management 

prnctiCOS rn g11t pr~w·de mu!t;ole benefits of reducing nutrient and 

s8dl•'lCnt pollution as well as toxic contaminants in waterways. 

Cor~w~ua.ily JrYiprove practices and controls tl1at reduce and prevent 

the eHects of toxic contaminants below levels that harrr1 aquatic 

systems and humans. Build on existing programs to reduce 

the an1ount anci effects of PCBs tn the Bay and watershed. Use 

r<Jsoar ch :·rhJrn0s c:vsluate Hlt rmolementaUon of additronal 

oolrcies, programs and practices for· ott1er contamrnants that need 

to be !ur\l~er· reduced or elimrnated 
154 


26784.140

GOALS & OUTCOMES 

HEALTHY WATERSHEDS 

Many small watersheds in the Bay region are currently healthy but also at risk of 

degradation as the demand for local lands and resources increases. Promoting the longterm conservation and protection of healthy watershed systems through stakeholder 

engagement, collaboration and education is critical to the health of the larger ecosystem. 

GOAL: Sustain state-identified healthy waters and watersheds 

recognized for their high quality and/or high ecological value. 

Healthy Watersheds 

Outcome 

100 perc en: cf s\ate-icentif:ed cur~e:1tly heai~hy waters and 

watersheds reman• healthy. 
155 


26784.141

10 

GOALS & OUTCOMES 

STEWARDSHIP 

The long-term success of the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort will depend on local 

leadership-and local action that depends primarily on a strong citizen stewardship. 

More than 600 local conservation and watershed organizations in our region are 

educating and empowering citizens to restore and protect their local streams and rivers. 

Tens of thousands of local citizen volunteers continue to donate their time and talent to 

our shared goals. Building a larger. broader and more diverse constituency of stewards 

is vital to achieving many of the Goals and Outcomes outlined in this Agreement. 

GOAL: Increase the number and the diversity of local citizen 

stewards and local governments that actively support 

and carry out the conservation and restoration activities 

that achieve healthy local streams, rivers and a vibrant 

Chesapeake Bay. 

Citizen Stewards'''P 

Outcome 

Local Leadership 

Outcome 

Diversity OutcomR 

increase the nur>1ber and c!ivasity of traired and mobilized citizen 

volunteers w1th the knowledge and sktlls needed to enhance the 

he.:tiH., of :~~eir locnl watersheds 

Cont:nually tt<e knowledge and capacity of local officials 

on ISSues ,·eioted ;o w1:1ter '"esources nnd 1n the implementation of 

econorr11c policy it~centives tl:at v1.nJ1 support local conservation 

ident,ly minori:y s:nKe!~older grouos that are not currently 

reoresented in the learlershiP, decision-rr1aking and Implementation 

of <;;nPservn.tion A.l'lrl restorntior activities and create meaningful 

ooportun1t1GS w~d prograrr~s to recru1t and engage them In the 

Partnership's GffCI!S 
156 


26784.142

GOALS & OUTCOMES 

LAND CONSERVATION 

The landscapes around the and its tributaries are ecologically, culturally historically 

and recreationally valuable to people and communities of the region. Stimulating 

renewing and expanding commitments to conserve priority lands for use and enjoyment 

is an integral part of furthering the watershed's identity and spirit. 

GOAL: Conserve landscapes treasured by citizens in order 

to maintain water quality and habitat; sustain working forests, 

farms and maritime communities; and conserve lands of 

cultural, indigenous and community value. 

Protected La·lds 

Outcome 

Land Use Metnods and 

Metrics Development 

Outcome 

Land Use 

Evaluation 

By 2025. nrotect an oddttional two million acres of lands throughout 

n--,e watersheci --cwren:ly 1cient fied as high co:-rservatton pnont1es at 

the lecJe·a1 s:ate or local level~including 225.000 acres of wetlands 

at1d 695.000 2cres oi forest land of htghest value for maintaining 

water qualtty (2010 baseliPe year) 

CoPw~uatly trnprove tl:e knowledge of land conversion and the 

assoWl.ted trnpacts ;hrougtlout !he waterslled. By 2016. develop 

a Chesapeake Bay wa;ersfled~wide methodology and local level 

for ell C. I actenz:r'£J tPe rate of farmla.t'CL forest and wetland 

conversion. measuring tt•e exton! and rate of ctrar:ge in impervioL:S 

surface ~:overa.ge CJ.nci quatl:Jfy!ng the potential trnpacts of land 

to r]ualtty, t'ealrry watetshecJs and communities 

Lau1d1 a publtc D.Nareness cnrnpaign to srarc thts information with 

iccal elected officials a•1d o;takeholders, 

By the 2017. with thA dtrect nwolvement of local governments 

or \he1r r·cpresentatiVeS. evaiuatG policy options. tncentNes and 

plar1ning tools that could assist thmn 1n continually improving their 

the rat"3 ot conversion of agricultural lands, 

forests ard wetlands well the rate of changtng landscapes 

hwn more natural lands u~at soak up pollutants to those that are 

paved over, hardscaped or other·wise irnpervious Strategies should 

be deveiooed for supoort:r~g toea! governments' ard others' efforts 

hcyo"rl 
157 


26784.143

1/ 

GOAlS & ES 

PUBLIC ACCESS 

Physical access to the Bay and its tributaries is very limited, with real consequences for 

quality of life, local economies and conservation, Increasing public access to 

local waterways for fishing, swimming, and other activities fosters a shared sense 

of responsibility and increased stewardship that supports Bay watershed restoration 

goals, 

GOAL: Expand public access to the Bay and its tributaries 

through existing and new local, state and federal parks, 

refuges, reserves, trails ancJ partner sites, 

Public Access 

Site Development 

Outcome 

By ndd 300 nR'h pl,b!ic access Sites, with a strong emphasis 

crOVictng DORtl1rg, swnrm'n-:J and lishng, where 

(::20~0 baseline year) 
158 


26784.144

GOAlS & OUTCOMES 

ENVIRONMENTAL LITERACY 

The we!i-being of the Chesapeake Bay watershed will soon rest in the hands of its 

youngest citizens~the more than three mii'ion students in kindergarten through twelfth 

grade. Establishing strong, targeted environmental education programs now provides a 

vital foundation for these future watershed stewards 

GOAL: Enable every student in the region to graduate with the 

knowledge and skills to act responsibly to protect and restore 

their local watorshed. 

Student Q.__;tcorno 

Sustai'lablo 

Scnools Outcome 

Env'ronmental 

Literacy Plann;ng 

Outcome 

Contii~tii:t!ly lllCI"8ase ~~tudents age-appropriate understanding of the 

rtHoug~i parttclpDtion in teacher-suoported, rr1eantngful 

experiences and ngorous, inqtJify-ba.sed 

of least one meaninglul warersl•ed 

in elen1er:tary. m1cidle and hiQii sclloo! 

r'urnber of schocls ifl the region that reduce 

Bay .'urlstl!Ctlon should develop a comprehensive 

to enwonrnental l:tero.cy for all students 1n 

enwonnmntollneracy Goals and Outcomes of this 
159 


26784.145

GOALS & OUTCOMES 

CLIMATE RESILIENCY 

Changing climatic and sea level cocditio~s may alter the Bay ecosystem and human 

activities. reqcJiring ad;ustment+o policies, programs and projects to successfully achieve 

our restoration and protection goals for the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. This 

challenge requires careful monitoring and assessment of these impacts and application 

of this knowledge to policies. programs and projects 

Mon:toring and 

Assessmen1 

Ou:come 

GOAL: Increase the resiliency of the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed, including its living resources, habitats, public 

infrastructure and communities, to withstand adverse impacts 

from changing environmental and climate conditions. 

t<ePds and likely Impacts of 

owd1t1ors oP the Chesapeake Bay 

r'\daptation Outcorne 

more 1ntcnse 
160 


26784.146

MA 

ST DEVELOP~.;1Ff\]T J\ND llv1PLEfv1Ef\HATION 

Within one year of the 

Chesapeake Bay Teams 

Strateg:es for the Outcomes tha: sctpport tris Agreemen''s 

outline the means for each Outcome as as monitoring, assessing 

and reporting progress and act1ons among partners and stakeholders 

as necessary. Where appropriate. MnnagtJnlent Strategies shou:d describe how local 

governments, nonprofit ancj f)artners will bo engaged: where actions. tools or 

technical support are to empower ocal governmel'ts and others to cio their 

part; and what steps w:ll be !aker; to fsc:!ita~e qroatm locn· participation in achioving the 

Outcome 

PartiCipation in Management Strateg1es or carttc1pmntg 

Ill the ach1evement of OutCOI'Y'es expec~od to vary 

by s1gnatory ba;,ed on d1ffenng pnom•es across tlte 

watershed Th1s participation may 1nciucie shmng 

knowledge. data or Information. educating cmzens or 

members, workmg on future ieglslation a'ld developillQ 

or itnp!ementmg programs or pract1ces Managernw1t 

Strateg1es. whtch are aimed atnnplementiPQ outcomes 

will tdentlfy parttc1pat1ng s1gnatones and other 

stakeholders, tnclud1ng local governments and no11profit 

organ1zat1ans, and will be lrr'plemt>nted 111 tvvc-yHor 

periods 

The signatories and other partners sha!l thereaftet update 

and/or modify such comm1tments every rvvo years 

Spec1flc Management w1tl be devsloped 

m consultation With orgamzat1ons and 

other agenctes and will Hoclude a penod for public 

•nput and rev1ew prtor to f1nal adopt,on, 

Staff Comm1ttee will report on adoptiOr' of 

Strategies at tile next Execut1ve Council meetrng and 

report on 1mplementat1on of ~~anage·-ne;lt 

every two years 

MnnC19ernent Strategies may address multiple 

Ou;:cornes if deemed appropnate, Goal lmplernentation 

reams w:tl re~evaluate b1enmaliy and dpdate strateg1es 

as necessary, w1:h attent1on to c11angmg environmental 

and economtc cond!t1ons. Partners rnay 1det1tify poltcy 

chc1nges to address these cond:t1ons and mii'li!T11ze 

obsracles to acf11eve the Outcomes 

StaKeholder 1nput will be Incorporated rnto che 

development and reevaluation of eacli of the strateg1es. 

T:le Chesapeake Bay Program will make these strateg1es 

a•1d 1eports on progress avad8ble to the publtc 1n a 

trtmsparent manner on 1ts webSI!es and through public 

meettngs o! the approprrate Goallrnplementat1or, Teams 

ar;cl Mcmagernent Board 

Th,, Goal ImplementatiOn TeRms w!li submit the 

Management Strateg:es to the Partnership's 

ManGQemtm! Board for rt:'v:ew. If the Management Board 

detennmes that any strategy or pian developed pr:or to 

the s1gn:ng of this Agreement meets the reqwrements 

a Mcmagoment Strategy as def:ned above. no new 

stralt'QY needs to be developed. T~11s tncludes. but IS not 

and plans for !mplementtng the 
161 


26784.147

N 

As Chesapeake Bay Program Partners_ we recogn1ze the need to accelerate Implementation of actions 

necessary to achieve the Goals and O:..~tco,ne;; out1l!lHi here n and reaitze our shared V1s1on of a healthy and 

vibrant Chesapeake Bay waters!<ed 

As Chesapeake Bay Program Partners. we acknowlecJge that th1s Agreenmn~ is voluntary and subject to 

the availability of appropnated funds ThiS Agr~;en:ent is not a contract or an ass1stance agreement. We 

also understand that th1s Agreement does not p!e-e;npt supersede or overnde any other taw or regulation 

applicable to encto signatory. 

We, the undersigned members oi the Chesapeake Execut1ve Ccunc:l, re-att1rm our commitment to support 

the Goals of this Agreement and to work cooperat:veJy in tts trnp!ernentation. We agree to work both 

independently and collaborattvely toward the Goals and Ouicomes at th1s Agreement and to 1mp!ement 

specific Management Strategies to achieve them. Every Citizen of tiltS great watershed 1s Invited to join with 

the Partnership. umting as a region and ernbractng the acttons tl1at will lead to success. 

Date: June 16, 2014 

For the Chesapeake Bay Commtssion 

For the State of Delaware 

For the District of Co!umb!a 

For the State of Maryland 

For the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

For tile State of New York 

For the Commonwealth of Virginia 

For the State of West Vtrg~nm. 

For the United States of Amenca 
162 


26784.148

AY 

NewYQflo:. 

17 
163 


26784.149
164 


26784.150

-o a.; 

~ 0 • z w 

~t~ g; ~ ~ z:;;, 0 

Hl li:l E £ 

E~ .§ ££-5 

"' e!'-o i ~~ ~~ _g 

I~ g 

t!J 

- " E ~ *- § 

Ui 

E,tao~ Ht 

!':1 E ,...... ~:: 

W ;:E ::ii M :q 5 

il'i 

I~ 

1r 

I~ 

I~ 

j;: 

I~ 

I 

~ g 

I' I> 

I> I> i>l'> 

j> 

I 

j'> 

r I" 

[ I" I" 

ll>l> 

I' 

I" l"i" 

[' 

II I~ 

~~ 1II1Iil! 

' ' ,,, ' ' ,f '1- \-'o, 

I '' :---

i" '>'> '>'> '>'>'> '>'> '> 

I i 1--

I'- 'Is '\- \, ''' _J 

'>~'>' ~l '>'> ,I I" ~[ - 1--

, "L '' ' I II' 

t- '>'> ').\.!\. '>'> '>'> '> I" I" 

-+ 1--

I'" .,. \< \. \., \. 

;.j_>f/ t- '>'> I"" '>'> '> 

1--

'I ' ' '' '>''>-'> 

1-- '> ),1, '> [,\ '>'> '>'> '> I" I" 

,I_' 

~~ '> ' ' &;:_ 

"I: '> '>'> '> 

,_ , I 1-

\. '\ i\ 'I> I 

1\.\. '>'>'> '>'>'> '>'> '> 

'> ' "). \ ' "' '~ " ' ' 

\.!\. '> '>'> ').1').'). '>'> '> ['> 

I " I 8 I 0 

I 

I ~ 

i c; c; ~ 

I ~ E ~ 

11· ~ .. " 

II ~ ~f E " • 'E 

I] 

~] ~lj i 13 v; 

IJiiiH ~ ~~ 

~ ~ 

~ H ~ ~ H 

26784.151

X 

/' /' /' /' /' /' 

>'I 

X /' /' / /' /' /' UO!lenje/13 suO!ldQ asn pue1 

X /' /' /' / /' /' /' luawdoi<lAao s::>plaV>J pue spo4lalt'4 asn pue1 

/' /' /' /' /' /' /' /' spue,palJiHOJd 

JeOg UOJleiU&sUO:) pUe'] 

X /' AljSJaii!O 

/' /' d!4SJapettljeJ01 /' /' 
166 


26784.152

1.\ 

I ·. 
167 


26784.153

26784.154

Approve each Bay jurisdictions' Best 

Management Practice verification 

program contained within the Clean 

Water Act Section 117 grant quality 

Assurance Project P!an 

EPA 

Chesapeake Bay 

Watershed and 

Jurisdictions implement practices. 

26784.155

Continuat!y improve Verification 

I VAl 

Chesapeake Bay 

Program and document changes in Watershed and 

PPupdates Jurisdictions 

---

lfication 

pilot project to test three different I WVI West Virginia 

verification techniques. 

verification j WVI WestVlrglnial 2016-2017lpo!!ution control practices 

1. BMP Verification 1

_:onduct BMP veririfcation training for 

MS4s I wvj West Virginia! 2016/2017 

Test and implement enhanced tracking and verification program for urban I WVI West Virginia! 2016-2017 

stormwater 

DOEE has committed to revise and clean 

ofBMP I 

DJ '0 District of Columbia! 2016 

26784.156

DOEE wll! perform a one-time £lMP 

verification effort to update inspection 

and maintenance records and populate 

DOEE's new stormwater database. 

Conservation Easement Pwgram 

(ACEP), Conservation Stewardship 

Program (CSP), and Coserviltion 

Technka!Assistance (CTA) funds. 

Pilot first (ncrementa! releases of 

DOEEI District of Co!u 

USDA USDA 

2016 

L Continue to sustain the 

2016/20i7jgovetnments and the priv

implement practices. 

26784.157

NRCS 

Bay 

and 

JurisdiCtions 

2016/2017 2016/2017 

26784.158

EPA 2016 

JurisdJctiorts 

outcomes and impacts of I MD Dept of Agl MDI 2016/2017 

requirements. 

2) Co11ect information to track 

PMT I I I !Regulation took etTcL't Ju

implementation schedule. 

Maintaln Maryland historic: level of 

Cover Crop acreage sign-up I MD Dept of Agl MDI 2015/2017 

participation and certlfkatlon 

NY NY 4016-2017 

26784.159

sector 

Prnpose draft District of Columbia MS4 

permit for comment EPA 

26784.160

enforceable performance measures. 

NPS, GSA, DoD-Navy, G$A, 

EPA D'istrlttofC 

I Delaware and District EPA of 

EPA 

Chesnpeake Bay 

Watershed and 

Jurisdh:::tions 

prograryt:; 

2016/2017 

26784.161

Provide assistance to Virginia 

ASSistance Fund and Virginia 

Conservation ASsistance Program. 

Issue all remaining Phase t MS4 permits. t 

EPA 

MD Dept of Envir' 

Virginia Virginia 

Virginia 20l6/2017 

MarYland 2016 

Virginia 2016/2017 Virgihl? 2016 

26784.162

DoD wilt identify _and share lessqns 

feamed, including stormw-ater benefits, 

costs, technical feasibility -<;hallenges, 

best management practices and the 

derived benefits. 

DOD DOD installations, where appHcabte 

OOEEl District of Columbia 

DOEEI DlstrlctofColumbia DOEEt District of Co!umbla 

2016/2017 2016/2017 2016/2:017 

2016/2017 
177 


26784.163

~ "' "' "' ?1 ?1 R 

g 

.~ 

@ t ~ 6 E 2 -" 8 8 8 8 

i '0 '0 '0 .~ t :t! 

~ ~ tl 0 0 

ttl ttl w 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26784.164

or ehminate dltcJt connecti(:ns 1 

and Jlllc!t d1scharges tOr the protecuon 

DO EEl District of Columbia I 2016/2017 

of water quality through outreach and 

educatiOn, comphance ass1stance and/or 

fomud enfOrcement actiOns 

I WVI West Virginia! 2016-2017 

Issue final "baseline demonstration" 

technical memorandum setting forth 

I EPA I Chesapeake Bay EPA expectations for the Bay Watershed and I March 2016 jurisdictions' offset and trading Jurisdictions 

programs. 

Issue draft "MS4 and construction 

mitigation" technical memoranda 

setting forth EPA expectations for the I EPA' Chesapeake Bay Bay jurisdictions' offset and trading Watershed and I 2016 and explore means for Jurisdictions 

addressing "interstate trading" 

considerations, 

-,-- uPdate ofprevfous 2012 I EPA' Chesapeake Say I trading and offset assessments for ali Watershed I March 4016 jurisdictions Jurisdictions 

26784.165

4, Guide development of 

jurisdictions' trading and offset 

p(ograms 

Work with other Federal agencies to 

build capacity that wm support an 

efficient and robust tradihg market 

UpdatJ;: and wsoUdate Maryland 

nutrient trading polfcy 

Regulations that establish the 

requirements and standards for the 

generation and certification of nutrient 

and sediment credits on agricultural 

land, 

Maintain offsets tracking and 

accountability system 

Ee, 

USDA, EPA;- DOT 

Maryland Departmehts of 

Agriculture and 

Environment 

Maryland Department of 

Agriculture 

wv 

wy 

Maryland 

Maryland 

West Virgin!\'! West Virginia 

2016 2016 

2016-2017 

1. Delivering the necess

capacity to implement p

programs 

26784.166

Nutrient Removal {ENR} with State 

grantj!oan support, A cumulative total of 63 to be out of 67 total goa!. 

Upgrade minor WWTPs to ENR with 

State grant/loan support. A cumulative 

total of 8 minor WWfPs wm have 

completed construction (3 WWTPs are 

currently in operation}. 

Amend and reissue the General VPDES 

Watershed Permit for Total Nitrogen 

and Total Phosphorus Discharges and 

Nutrient in the Chesapeake Bay 

Watershed in Virginia 

Maryland Department of 

Environment 

Department o· 

Environment 

Virginia 

Maryland Maryland 

Virginia's Chesapeake 

Bay Watershed 

2016/2017 

2016/2017 

2. Delivering the necessary 

2016/2017lcapadtyto implement pra

programs 

26784.167

Clean Rivers Project long Term Control 

Plan submitted to EPA for approvaL 

DC Water has submitted an application 

for the ren!'!waJ of Blue Plains NPDES 

Virg!niaf Virginfa 

DC Water! District of Columbia 

DC Water! District of Columbia 

DC Water and EPA! District of Columbia 

2016/2017 

2016/2017 

2016 

2016 

26784.168

Finalize significant wastewater 

treatment plant upgrades: so that at! are 

compliant with TMDL wasteload 

a!!ocatioos 

Report annual compliance on 

wastewater National Pollutant 

Discharge EJiminatlon System (NPDES) 

permits and report any in,statled 

Enhanced Nutrient Removal (ENR) 

upgrades at DoD wastewater treatment 

facilities. 

wv 

DOD 

West Virginia 

DOD insta!!atlons, 

where applicable 

2016/2017 2016/2017 
183 


26784.169

Ill! It u ~ ir u 

~ 2 

"" 1 l 2 " 

3 " 6 3 

g ., ~ 
184 


26784.170

~ 

~ g ~ g 

~~ 0 > 

~ 00 

,@~ 

~ If u i! 0 u 

a • 0 £ 

~ 0 

0 

0 

26784.171

Dmlop digital land use and boundary! I USACE landholdings in 

data for USACE properties m the USACE the Chesapeake Bay! 2016/2017 

Cllesapeake Bay watershed. Watershed 

Assessexistingandfuture BMPsfor USACE landholdings in 

USACE properties in the Bay USACE the Chesapeake Bayl 2016/2017 

Watershed Watershed 

Provide fmancial support to Bay 

jurisdictions, as authorized, through Chesapeake Bay 

EPA's assistance programs including EPA Watershed and! 2016/2017 

CWA Section 319, CWA 117 CB!G and Jurisdictions 

CBRAP 

Provide financial support to localities 

aod other eebt<e; thwugh the' 

EPA' 

Chesapeake Bay 

Nutrie11t and Sediment Watershed and! 2016/2017 

Reduct1on Grants and the Small Jurisdictions 

WatershedGrants,asauthorized 
186 


26784.172

1' 

i 6 " 1' 

0 ~ 

" 

ill ~ 

~ ~ 0 " ~ ~ ~ « 

> ~ i 6 

" a ~ ;;:' g ~ 

:E 

~ 

~ > 

. 

~ 0 u 

ro g 

nrrn u 

B 

" 0 ci: 

~ I ~ 

~ i ~ ~ 

g " ~ ~-~]~£ ·o 

~ ~ E ~ 

·o; j ~ 

E w E :0 c 8 B u 

~.X ·g_ ·2 ~ ~ IE l •o; 

HH1 B <;; j j ~ G ; j £ 0 ,_ o E ,_ iS. ' ~ C3 . 1:. 00 

~ ] i -~ s 1' ~ 

., ~ .,., 

~ I 0 ~ . .g 8 6 e 

26784.173

DoD will support to the extent 

practicable ttle 'Protocol for Setting 

Targets, Planning BMPs, and Reporting 

Progress for federal Facilities and lands' 

and identifyapproachestotrack 

reductions from regulated and non- I DOD regulated land uses. DoD installations 

will continue to project future BMPs and 

use BayFASTorotherreporting 

mechanisms for implementation 

planning. 

Contmue to participate m jurisd1ct1ons' 

W!Pprocessesbyprovidingmstallation 

DoDIDOD 

to support effective implementation of 

futurePhase!HW!Pexpectations 

Report Annual BMP implementation 

progress by December 1st each year for 

simulation through the Chesapeake Bay 

Watershed ModeL Results used to 

assess progress toward achieving 

M1lestones and 2017 60% reduction 

goat 

Bay Jurisdictions 

DoD installations 

where applicable 

DoD installations 

where applicable 

Chesapeake Bay 

Watershed and 

Jurisdictions 

2016/2017 2016/2017 2016/2017 

26784.174

criteria attainment over time in tid a! 

waters from 1985h2014 

Provide an update. describing temporal 

and regional patterns in water quaHty 

standards attJinmcnt of dissolved 

1. Continue wo.rk to improve. I oxygen, water cJarity/SAVatid 

temporal and reg1onal patterns m chlorophylL 

water quality criteria attainment in 

tidal and non-tidal waters. 

Publish a new Ambient Water QuaHty 

Crlterii'l Technical Addendum that 

provides updated guidancE' on water 

quality standards attainment 

assessment methods for the tidal bay 

jurisdlttions 

CBP Monitoring Team; 

UMCES 

Monitoring Team; 

C!lesapeilkeBay 

Watershed ami 

lurisdictions 

Tidal water areas of 

the Chesapeake Bay 

Watershed 

jurisdictions !susquehanna dams have o

to the Bay, including 

26784.175

Implement new process for quantifying 

trends in tidal water-quality parameters. 

The new process in.corporates advances I UMCES/EPA, MD DNR, 

in methods to prov1de more information VADEQ 

on trends in water-quality patterns over 

time. 

Tidal water areas of 

the Chesapeake Bay 

Watershed 

Annually in 

2016/2017 

26784.176

3. Coordinate the CBP non-tidLJl 

water-quality network 

The partners in the network will co!!ect 

nutrient and sediment samples from 

over 125 sites throughout the 

watershed. 

USGS, EPA, MD DNR, VA 

DEQ. DEREC, WV DNR, PA, 

DC, DC, NY, SRBC 

The USGS will work. with the partners to ( USGS, EPA, MD DNR, VA 

compile quality assure the information 

to update loads and trends. 

USGS will completely upd<~te the 

reportmg of loads to the Bay and trends 

of nutrients and sediment loads in the 

watershed; revised products will be prep<~red to communicate these results 

DEQ. DEREC, WV DNR, PA, 

DC, DC, NY, SRBC 

USGS 

2016-2017l~~~s~~;;~ar:~~:n:heet:~~

reductions to focus manag

t------;and strategies 

Noo-tidol wotec orw I 201 6-201712.1mpmvlog the lde.ntificat

of the Chesapeake Bay and their contnbutmns to n

watershed phosphorus and sed1ment 

2016 

26784.177

4. Addressing gaps in monitoring 

programs Coordinate and integrate Citizens 

Monitoring effort funded by the CBP monitoring team, 

Alliance for the Chesapeake 

Bay (ACB), lsaacWa!ton 

league Jurlsdictiops 

1. Delivering the necess

2016-20171 capacity to implement 

programs 
192 


26784.178
193 


26784.179

26784.180

3. Provide information to enhance ,------------, 

the CBP watershed models. Results 

of these studies wi!l be used to 

prepare and calibrate the Phase 6 

model in 2016. {USGS, working with 

CBP modeling te3m) 

Run key scenarios and refine modeling 

toofs 

USGS 

STAC, Modellng Workgroi.Jp in/a 

Re!ease Phase!!! W!P Stakeholder 

Assessment Institute of Environmental 

1-------------l Negottation;WQGlT; Bay In/a 

Develop Phase Hl W1P Action Plan Jurisdictions 

Chesapeake Say 

Watershed and 

jurlsdlctlons 

Susquehanna 

reservoirs and 

CheS\lp\'!ake Bay 

Watershed anti 

jurisdictions 

2016 

Oct. 2015 · October 

2. Enhancing the nextgene

decision support tools 

3. Examining the impact th

Susquehanna dams have o

to the Bay including 

time. 

Improved Technical In

Winter/Spring 2016! Response of Water Qua!l

December 2015/ 

Management Pr

Implementation of Pract

fnformatlon; Response o

5. Develop Phase Ill W!P Expectations 

26784.181

Provide Phase tl! W!P Expectations 

Outreach to locaJ Bayjutisdlctjons 

6. Collection of local Land Use Oat<> I"' 

!Improving National Wetlands Inventory 

Data 

Incorporation of data into Phase 6 

modeling tools 

EPA; PSC;. MB; WQGIT; 

WQGITWorkgroups; Bay In/a 

Jurisdictions 

\Land Us~ Workgtoup 

n/a 

Workgroup 

FWS;PAOEP n/a (although priority forPA} 

Land Use Workgroup; n/a Modeling Workgroup 

LOnCHtlO(lS to Managem

Jun. 2017 

AUgusf201S- July 

2016 

Improved Technical I

November 2015 ;I May2016 

**Note: As a member of the Chesapeake Executive Council and a signatary to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, the Chesapeake Bay Commission (CBC) functions as the legis

the Chesapeake Bay Program working within Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virgm1a and at the federal/eve/ to identify specific Bay management concerns requiring intergovernmental c

Definitions: 

EPA 

DE DNREC 

DOEE 

MDE 

MD DNR 

NYS DEC 

PADEP 

VADEQ 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Delaware Department of Natutral Resources and Environmental Control 

District of Columbia Department of Energy and Environment 

Maryland Department ofthe Environment 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources 

New York State Department of Environmental control 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 

26784.182

WVDEP 

USGS 

FWS 

UMCES 

JHU 

NOAA 

USDA 

NRCS 

DoD 

USACE 

DOT 

SRBC 

CBP 

CBPO 

WQGIT 

STAC 

MB 

PSC 

WiP 

TMDL 

West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection 

U.S. Geological Survey 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser\lice 

University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science 

Johns Hopkins University 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

National Resource Conser\lation Service 

U.S. Department of Defense 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Department of Transportation 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission 

Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership 

Chesuoeake Bay Program Office 

Water Quality Goal Implementation Team 

SC!entifical and Technical Advisory Comm1ttee 

Chesapeake Bay Program's Management Board 

Chesapeake Bay Program's Principles' Staff Committee 

Watershed Implementation Plan 

Total Maximum Daily load 
197 

Senator INHOFE [presiding]. Thank you, Ms. Coble. 

Mr. Vucetich. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN VUCETICH, PH.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF FOREST RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE, MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY 

Mr. VUCETICH. Committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify. I appreciate it greatly. I am a professor of wildlife management from Michigan Technological University and have been studying wolf ecology and management for the past 20 years. 

My professional understanding of the HELP for Wildlife Act is 

that it is a Trojan horse and should be opposed or amended. It contains some important positive provisions, but its most important effect, I believe, would be to undermine the Endangered Species Act 

and to subvert wolf conservation. 

Wolves are understood by science to be valuable to our ecosystems. Most Americans also recognize that wildlife, including 

wolves, possess value in their own right, and should be treated fairly and with respect. Sociological evidence is clear that the public 

support for wolves and wolf conservation is strong. Public support 

for the Endangered Species Act is also high among both liberal and 

conservative constituents. 

Nevertheless, some citizens and special interests express concern 

that conserving wolves comes at too high a price. They raise disquiet about human safety, protecting livestock, and unfair competition with hunters for deer. 

I address each of those topics in detail in my written testimony, 

and here I can summarize the main findings. 

First, and with respect to human safety, wolves, very simply, are 

not a threat to human safety. This fact is robustly supported by scientists in academia and in government. False impressions to the 

contrary are fostered by those who fabricate stories, made up stories about wolves and the threats that they cause to humans. 

Second, and with respect to livestock, government statistics 

plainly indicate that wolves are not a threat to the livestock industry. Wolves can certainly be a concern and a problem for some individual livestock owners, and we have an important obligation to attend to those challenges. Fortunately, there are effective tools 

available to deal with those problems. They include non-lethal control and financial compensation. And when those programs need to 

be improved, they should be so improved. 

The economic impact on livestock is more than likely made up 

greatly by wolves’ effect on over-abundant deer populations. Overabundant deer in the Great Lakes region is detrimental to forestry, 

it is detrimental to crops, it is detrimental to private property and 

human safety. In each of the three States in the Great Lakes region, about a dozen people are killed every year when their automobiles strike deer, and injuries number in the many hundreds. 

Wolf delisting is also motivated by very few people with an intense interest to hunt wolves. Their voices have been greatly amplified by State agencies. Their expressed motivation is to promote 

deer hunting; however, the best scientific evidence indicates that 

hunter success is influenced by factors aside from wolves, and 

State agencies from the Great Lakes region report that deer huntVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:11 Sep 27, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00203 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\26784.TXT SONYA
198 

ing is quite successful both in terms of number of deer harvested 

and hunter satisfaction. 

So these concerns, human safety, livestock, and deer, they tend 

to be grossly exaggerated. And to the limited extent that the concerns are genuine, they are readily accommodated. 

The concerns about wolf hunting go further. First, plans for wolf 

hunting are at odds with sound science, especially in the State of 

Wisconsin, where hunting would be intense enough to impair the 

ecological value of wolves. This is one of the values that is explicitly expressed in the finding section of the ESA, a value to be protected. 

Another concern about hunting pertains to America’s hunting 

heritage and the widely acknowledged decline in hunting participation. Because few Americans participate in hunting, the success, 

the future success of hunting in America depends on the attitudes 

of non-hunters. Most non-hunters support hunting when it is motivated by obtaining meat; and most Americans, most non-hunters, 

oppose hunting when it is motivated by hatred for the animal, 

when it is motivated by obtaining a trophy, especially by cruel 

methods such as traps and neck snares. These are the important 

motivations and methods of wolf hunting. Pressing for this kind of 

hunting will unquestionably harm America’s hunting heritage in 

the whole. 

A few assert that wolves demonstrate shortcomings in the Endangered Species Act. However, with a 99 percent success rate, the 

Endangered Species Act has been extremely effective at preventing 

the extinction of listed species. Moreover, there is solid sociological 

evidence to indicate that most people do not believe the Endangered Species Act is overly protective. Finally, the Endangered Species Act allows for ample flexibility about how it is that agencies 

and their collaborators go about recovering species. 

What the ESA requires is better implementation, and implementation is impaired when Congress intervenes on decisions pertaining to individual species, it is impaired when Congress intervenes on judicial review of ESA decisions, and when Congress fails 

to provide adequate funding for the Endangered Species Act. Adequate implementation also depends on sound science playing its 

proper role, a condition that is not always realized. 

So this is a summary of the shortcomings as I see them for the 

HELP for Wildlife Act as they pertain, in particular, to the Endangered Species Act and wolf conservation. 

Thank you for the opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Vucetich follows:] 

199 


26784.183

John A. Vucetich 

PhD, f'orest Science, Michigan Technological University 

BS, Biology, Michigan Technological University 

John Vucetich is an associate professor of animal ecology at Michigan 

Technological University, where he teaches courses in Population 

Ecology and Environmental Ethics. He is co-director of the Isle 

Royale \\?olf-Moose Project, the longest continuous study of any 

predator-prey system in the world. He is also co-director of the 

Conservation Ethics Group. He has authored more than 75 scholarly 

publications on a range of topics, including wolf-prey ecology, extinction risk, population genetics, 

and environmental philosophy. I lis also writes for general audiences in venues that include the i'iew 

York Timu and The Eto!ogirt. 

John's contributions to the wolf-moose project have been officially recognized by the United States 

Senate. Many of his other contributions on topics including the interpreting of the Endangered 

Species Act, his opposition to the misuse of science in efforts to justifY wolf hunting, advocacy by 

scientists, and the impact of global change on attitudes about conservation, the neglect of ethics in 

discourse on sustainability, and the conflict between conservation and animal welfare ri have 

captured the attention of peers, the general public, and governments around the world. 

John was fictionalized as the main character in NeYada Barr's U7 interSt11dy, a novel based on his 

w~nter field research, that appeared in the top-ten of theN ew York Best-Sellers list for hard-cover 

fiction. \'Vben not working he is either sailing or thinking about sailing. 
200 


26784.184

Testimony 

of 

PROFESSOR JOHN A. VUCETICH, PH.D., 

SCHOOL OF FOREST RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE, 

MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY 

®'tJ~~tiJ!llmtl!,~f!!l 

before the 

U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE 

ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

on 

The H.E.L.P. for Wildlife Act. 

17 July 2017 

About the witness: I am a professor in the School of Forest Resources and Environmental 

Science, Michigan Technological University. I have held a faculty position with Michigan 

Technological University since 1996. My scholarly expertise is population biology, most 

frequently examining wolves and their prey. I am also a scholar for certain topics pertaining to 

the human dimensions of conservation. I have authored or co-authored more than 80 peerreviewed articles over the past two decades related to these and other subject areas, and have 

given more than 50 invited talks in the past 12 years. 

I have been studying wolves for about 25 years. My predation ecology research includes 

but is not limited to how predator populations affect their prey and how prey affect predators. 

The majority of my wolf-related scholarship has been in Isle Royale National Park, located in 

Michigan and surrounded by Lake Superior. I have been working on the Isle Royale wolf-moose 

project since the early 1990s, and have been leading the project since 2001. It is the longest 

running wolf study in the world and the longest study of any predator-prey system in the world. 

Further details are offered in my CV, which was submitted with this testimony. 
201 


26784.185

§1. SUMMARY. 

As written, The HELP for Wildlife Act is a Trojan horse and should be opposed or amended. It 

includes some positive provisions, but its most important effect would be to undermine the 

Endangered Species Act and subvert the conservation of wolves. 

Wolves are valuable to ecosystems and most people recognize that wildlife- including wolvespossess value in their own right (For details, please see §7 of this document). Public support for 

wolves and wolf conservation, in particular, is very high (§2). Public support for the U.S. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) is also high- among both liberal and conservative constituents 

(§2). 

Some citizens and special interests express concern that conserving wolves comes at too high a 

price- raising disquiet about human safety (§3), protecting livestock (§4), unfair competition 

with hunters for deer (§5). These concerns have been grossly exaggerated. To the very limited 

extent that the concerns are genuine, they are readily accommodated. 

Each of these claims are detailed, demonstrated, and documented in the subsequent sections 

of this document. In summary: 

• Sociological evidence indicates that more than 80% of Americans are either positive or 

neutral about wolves. Fewer than 10% are very opposed. Sociological evidence also indicate 

that these positive views have been increasing over the past several decades. Impressions 

to the contrary rise, for example, from biased media coverage and state agencies who end 

up hearing the concerns of a few detractors but not the overwhelming majority who are 

supportive (§2). 

• Wolves very simply are not a threat to human safety. This fact is robustly supported by 

experts and scientists from academia, federal government, and state governments. The 

false impression that wolves are a threat to human safety is fostered by those who fabricate 

or exaggerate the threat that wolves represent and thereby exploit a public that is easily 

and overly impressed by certain kinds of fear (§3). 

• Government statistics plainly indicate that wolves are not a threat to the livestock industry. 

Wolves can be a problem for a small number of individual livestock owners. We have an 

important obligation to attend those problems. Fortunately, effective tools are available to 

accommodate that concern- including and especially various forms of financial 

compensation and nonlethal control. Where there is a need to improve these programs, 

they should be so improved (§4). 

• Overabundant deer are detrimental to human safety (vehicle collisions), private property, 

agriculture and forestry. There is considerable evidence that deer are overabundant in 

numerous places where wolves had recently been intensively harvested or where wolves 

once lived but no longer live. Whatever affect wolves might have on deer would be an 

overall benefit including overall benefits to agriculture (§4). 

• Wolf delisting is also motivated by very few people with an intense interest to hunt wolves. 

Their voices have been greatly amplified by state agencies. Their expressed motivation is to 

promote deer hunting and hunting, in general. The best scientific evidence from wildlife 

biologists indicates that hunter success is influenced by factors aside from wolves. 

2 
202 


26784.186

Plans for wolf hunting in all three Great Lakes states are at odds with sound science. 

Moreover, wolf hunting in Minnesota and Wisconsin would be intense enough to place at 

considerable risk the ecological value of wolves- one of the values to be protected 

according to the ESA. 

Participation in hunting is widely understood to be in long term decline. This cultural 

shift- not wolves- is the main threat to hunting. Because few participate in hunting now 

and in the future, the success of hunting depends on the attitudes of non-hunters. 

Moreover, most non-hunters are supportive of hunting when obtaining meat is the 

motivation for hunting. And a large majority of Americans oppose hunting when the 

motivation is hatred for the animal or obtaining a trophy, especially by cruel methods such 

as traps or neck snares. These are important motivations and methods of wolf hunting. 

Advocates of hunting who press this kind of hunting will, undoubtedly, be harming the 

American hunting heritage. (§5) 

A few, vocal people assert that wolves demonstrate shortcomings in the U.S. Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). However, with a 99% success rate, the ESA has been extremely effective at 

preventing the extinction of listed species. Moreover, sociological evidence indicates that most 

people do not believe the ESA is overly protective. Finally, the ESA allows for ample flexibility in 

how various endangered species are recovered. What the ESA requires is better 

implementation. Adequate implementation of the ESA is impaired when Congress: 

(i) intervenes on decisions pertaining to individual species, 

(ii) intervenes on judicial review of decisions made by the executive branch, and 

(iii) fails to provide adequate funding for the ESA. 

Adequate implementation also depends on allowing sound science to play its proper role in 

decision-making a condition that is not always realized. The ESA does not require statutory 

revision (§6). 

Delisting wolves at this time is bad for wolf conservation. Delisting wolves in the manner it is 

and has been pursued is deeply damaging to the ESA. Finally, the manner in which states have 

been (and plan to) manage wolves will have significant adverse impacts on America's hunting 

heritage. The reasons provided in this testimony indicate how anti-wildlife provisions of the 

HELP for Wildlife Act are inconsistent with the values of the American public and why those 

provisions should be removed. 

§2. PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR WOLF CONSERVATION AND THE ESA IS HIGH. 

2.1 Americans' attitudes toward large carnivores, including wolves, are largely positive. Those 

attitudes have also become increasingly positive over the past four decades, and only 10% of 

Americans have significantly negative attitudes about wolves (George et al. 2016; See also 

Suppl. Material #1). 

2.2. What accounts for the false impression of low tolerance for wolves? 

2.3.1. Some sociological studies suggest that attitudes towards wolves have become more 

negative over time; these studies tend to focus on hunters and rural residents living 

within wolves' range (e.g. Treves et al. 2013, Ericsson & Heberlein 2003). While it is 

important to address these attitudes (see below), they are not representative of the 

interests of most Americans. 

2.3.2. Other research indicates that biased media coverage gives the impression of low and 

deteriorating tolerance for wolves. For example, Houston et al. (2010) examined 

3 
203 


26784.187

North American news coverage about wolves over a 10-year time period (1999-

2008). Of the 6,000 stories they analyzed, 72% of the news media represented 

negative attitudes about wolves. They also found that these negative expressions had 

increased significantly over time. The concern is that media coverage does not 

accurately represent Americans' attitudes (see George et al. 2016). 

2.3.3. In 2003 the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources hosted a series of scoping meetings 

concerning wolf management. About 80% of the 900 people who attended those 

meeting identified 'do not allow wolves in Utah' as a management priority. At the 

same time (i.e., in 2003), a systematic study of attitudes toward wolves found that 

74% of Utahans exhibited positive attitudes toward wolves. 

This case illustrates that state agencies can get the false impression of low support 

for wolves on the basis of their contact with the public. The concern is that agencies' 

contact with the public is not always representative of the public's attitude on the 

whole, or even of those who care about wildlife conservation issues. This 

circumstance is regrettable, but understandable, given that scoping meetings, for 

example, are often attended disproportionately by stakeholders who are especially 

upset about an issue. This case and these circumstances are detailed in Bruskotter et 

al. (2007). 

2.4. Psychological research indicates that intolerance for wolves (and other large carnivores) 

may originate from negative emotional reactions toward these species (Slagle et al. 2012) that 

are at gross odds with scientific knowledge about these species (Johannson et al. 2012). Other 

sociological research makes the case that negative attitudes about wolves are associated, less 

so with the negative impact of wolves, and more so with "deep-rooted social identity" 

(Naughton-Treves et al. 2003; see also Heberlein 2012). 

While it is important to ameliorate the adverse impacts of wolves for those few 

individuals who are actually impacted, doing so is not likely to cause those individuals to have 

more positive attitudes, as was demonstrated by Naughton-Treves et al. (2003). 

2.5. Existing data indicate that public support for the ESA is widespread and strong. A 

sociological study concludes that most Americans (84%} are supportive of the ESA (Czech & 

Krausman 1997). That study also indicated that 49% of respondents believed that ESA should be 

strengthened. And, only 16% believed it should be revoked or weakened. 

Recent polling data give the same positive impression. One poll indicates that 

approximately 80 to 90% of Americans are supportive of the ESA (Harris Interactive 2011). 

Another poll indicates that support for the ESA transcends political ideology. That is, support for 

the ESA by self-identified liberals, moderates, and conservatives is 96%, 94%, and 82%, 

respectively (Tulchin Research 2015). 

§3. WOLVES ARE NOT A THREAT TO HUMAN SAFETY 

3.1. Except in the very rarest of circumstances, wolves are not a threat to human safety. 

Incidents of wolves harming people are incredibly rare. Wolves generally avoid people and in 

almost all cases people have nothing to fear from wolves in the wild. 

In the 21st century, only two known deaths have been attributed to wild wolves in all of 

North America. There have been no deaths from wolves in the conterminous United States. Far 

more Americans are killed by bees or dogs than by wolves. Far more Americans are killed in 

deer-car collisions. Our overall response to any threat to human safety should be, in part, 

commensurate with the risk of that threat. 

4 
204 


26784.188

On the extraordinarily rare occasions when a wolf has appeared to be even potentially 

problematic, the appropriate agency (state or federal) has moved swiftly to address any 

possible threat. For example, in May 2015, the Mexican Wolf Interagency Field Team lethally 

removed a wolf that was exhibiting unusual activity near residents and populations in Catron 

County, New Mexico. 

3.2. The false impression that wolves are a threat to human safety is fostered by the interaction 

between (i) a public that is easily and overly impressed by certain kinds of fear and (ii) those 

who fabricate or exaggerate the threat that wolves represent. The seriousness of these 

exaggerations is illustrated with two examples from Michigan: 

3.2.1. A state Senator from Michigan conveyed a "horrifying and fictional" account of 

wolves threatening humans. That account was included in a 2011 resolution urging the 

U.S. Congress to remove ESA protections for gray wolves in Michigan. Later the Senator 

conceded that the account was not true. This case is documented in Oosting (2013). 

3.2.2. Adam Bump, an official from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 

"misspoke" when he was interviewed by Michigan Radio (a National Public Radio 

affiliate) in May 2013. Bump apparently said to the interviewer: "You have wolves 

showing up in backyards, wolves showing up on porches, wolves staring at people 

through their sliding glass door while they're pounding on it exhibiting no fear." Later, 

Bump conceded that this did not happen. This case is documented in Barnes (2013). 

§4. AGRICULTURAL CONCERNS. 

4.1. According to a 2011 USDA report on cattle death loss, wolf depredation represents less 

than half of one percent of all losses (USDA 2011). For context, about half of all losses are 

health-related (e.g., digestive problems, respiratory problems, metabolic problems). Losses due 

to dogs are almost three times as common as wolf-related losses. Losses due to poisoning and 

theft are six times as common as wolf-related losses. These statistics are similar within each of 

the states inhabited by wolves, i.e., Ml, MN, WI, MT, ID, WY, WA, AZ and NM. Wolves are not a 

threat to the livestock industry. 

4.2. At the same time, the threat to livestock has been exaggerated. In some cases, the 

exaggerations are fueled by state agencies. In particular, the government of Michigan raised 

disquiet about what it portrayed as a high and rising number of depredations (wolves killing 

cattle) in 2012. Subsequently, a FOIA request and investigative journalism determined that 

most of the livestock losses were attributed to a single livestock owner, who was later charged 

with violating animal welfare laws. The depredations were very likely attributable to livestock 

owner's poor husbandry of his livestock. This case is documented in Vucetich et al. 2017. 

4.3. Lethal and non-lethal control 

4.3.1. Scientific evidence indicates that lethal control may be less effective than is 

commonly supposed (reviewed in Treves et at. 2016). 

4.3.2. Lethal control is also a source of public controversy, as it is shunned by some 

stakeholders. A critical component of meeting the challenges represented by lethal 

control (both the establishment of lethal control policy and the aftermath that can 

follow some instances of lethal control) is a robust multi-stakeholder committee, 

such as the Wolf Advisory Group in the state of Washington. The establishment and 

maintenance of such bodies is effortful, but also very important. 

5 
205 


26784.189

4.3.3. Non-lethal methods are often effective for preventing depredation and avoid conflict 

before considering lethal control. There is a suite of nonlethal methods and 

strategies that have been effectively used. These include: nonlethal predator 

deterrents such as livestock guarding dogs, fencing and fladry; increasing human 

presence on the landscape through range riders; use of scare tactics and alarms; 

best management practices for livestock and land such as changing grazing 

strategies and removing carcasses. 

Those tools have been used effectively, for example, in a community-based 

project in the Wood River Valley of Idaho- an area with between 10,000 to 22,000 

sheep grazing per year. During the first 7 years of the project (which began in 2007) 

fewer than five sheep were killed per year. 

4.4. In certain instances, wolves do indeed compete with the interests of individual livestock 

owners. Those instances are important. The American people share a burden to assist in these 

instances. To this end, the states, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of Agriculture 

and non-profit organizations all have programs to assist ranchers financially or with tools and 

management techniques to reduce conflicts with wolves. Several varieties of these programs 

exist, focusing variously on: compensation for livestock losses; cost-share and technical 

assistance for the use of nonlethal tools that reduce conflict; and incentive payments such as 

payment for presence. Programs such as these are widely understood to be essential for 

realizing vital aspects of carnivore conservation (e.g., Dickman et al. 2011, Vucetich & 

Macdonald 2017). Where there is a need to improve these programs, they should be so 

improved. With such programs in place, concerns about wolves and livestock are very 

reasonably accommodated. 

4.5. Deer represent important context about the threat that wildlife can represent to human 

safety, private property, and agricultural interests. For example, in Michigan, deer kill eight 

humans and injury another 1300 in deer-vehicle collisions each year. Deer ruin private property 

through more than 100 deer-vehicle collisions each day. Deer also cause significant damage to 

two important sectors of agriculture- crop production and forestry. There are also rising 

concerns about chronic wasting disease in deer. Whatever effect wolves might have on deer 

would be an overall benefit. 

§5. WOLF HUNTING DAMAGES AMERICA'S HUNTING HERITAGE 

5.1. Our treatment of wolf hunting is importantly connected to hunting in general. This 

connection begins by acknowledging a widely-appreciated circumstance, that participation in 

hunting has been declining for several decades. The demographic forces behind that decline are 

expected to continue into the foreseeable future. Those trends are of great concern to state 

wildlife agencies and advocates of hunting. These groups are searching for ways to reverse 

those trends. 

While participation in hunting is low and declining, support for hunting by non-hunters 

is high. However, that support depends on the reason that is offered for why hunting takes 

place. For example, 85% of Americans support hunting when motivated by the acquisition of 

meat. But only about 26% of Americans support hunting motivated by the acquisition of a 

trophy. For details, see Dud a and Jones (2008). 

Another important motivation to hunt wolves is hatred of wolves. In the past, hatred 

has motivated programs designed to eliminate certain populations of wildlife. But, never before 

6 
206 


26784.190

in the history of America's hunting heritage has hatred been an acceptable or ethical basis for 

hunting. 

Support for hunting by non-hunters also depends on the methods used for hunting. 

Traps and neck snares are used to hunt wolves. Both methods are widely considered cruelty to 

animals. 

Because motivation for hunting affects support for hunting by non-hunters and because 

the motivations for wolf hunting are weak, wolf hunting is liable to harm the honor of America's 

hunting tradition. We should not be surprised to see that wolf hunting works against interests 

to promote hunting in a society with waning participation in hunting. Congress, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and state wildlife agencies could be effective agents for better promoting our 

American hunting heritage, but the HELP for Wildlife Act does not serve this interest. 

S.2. Other concerns about wolf hunting: 

S.2.1. The Findings section of the ESA (Sec 2.(a)(3)) indicates that species are valuable to 

the Nation and its people, in part, for their "ecological" value. The primary ecological 

value of wolves is largely associated with their influence on deer populations, 

including preventing deer from becoming overabundant. Overabundant deer (and 

elk in some regions of the American west) are detrimental to human safety, private 

property, agriculture and forestry. There is considerable evidence that deer (and elk 

in many regions of the western U.S.) are overabundant in numerous places where 

wolves are intensively harvested or where wolves once lived but no longer live (e.g., 

McShea et al. 1997, Bradford and Todd 2008; Dickson 201S}. The ecological value of 

wolves is impaired if they are hunted too intensively. Wisconsin and Minnesota had 

been implementing hunts that were intense enough to very likely impair the 

ecological value of wolves. 

S.2.2. An important prospect for wolves achieving recovery is through dispersal and range 

expansion from areas where wolf populations are already established. The concern 

is that range expansion is, at least, significantly curtailed by intensive hunting of 

wolves. 

S.2.3 Wolf hunting is motivated, in part, by state game and fish agencies' interest to satisfy 

deer hunters. This motivation may be sensible when all of the following conditions 

hold: (i) wolves cause deer abundance to decline, (ii) wolf hunting (as implemented) 

results in a significant increase in deer abundance without impairing the health and 

functioning of the wolf population, (iii) increased deer abundance will translate to 

hunters' satisfaction with their hunting experience, and (iv) interests to increase 

deer abundance outweigh interest to decrease deer abundance. In many cases, it is 

far from reasonably certain that all of these conditions hold. 

Put simply, wolves do not represent significant competition with hunters for 

deer. Hunter success is influenced by factors aside from wolves, such as winter 

severity. 

S.2.4. Some argue that wolf hunting is important for building tolerance for wolves. 

However, sociological evidence suggests that tolerance is not built by legal killing of 

wolves (e.g., Treves et al. 2013, Browne-Nunez et al. 201S, Hogberg et al. 201S). 

S.2.5. Michigan's government promoted wolf hunting through egregious misuse of science 

and distain for basic principles of democracy. Voting records indicate, in part, that 

citizens are aware of and do not support such abuses in the service of wolf hunting. 

These circumstances are detailed in Vucetich et al. 2017. 

7 
207 


26784.191

5.2.6. After a couple years of intense hunting in Minnesota it was determined that the wolf 

population declined by 25% (between 2008 and 2013). Moreover, the declined 

caught state officials by surprise, because the population had not been adequately 

monitored and because state officials misjudged the effects of intense harvesting. 

§6. LEGAL CONCERNS 

The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) delisted gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes in 

December 2011. The decision was challenged in federal court. In December 2014, the court 

rejected the FWS's delisting decision and ordered the FWS to restore ESA protections for gray 

wolves in the Western Great Lakes. An important basis for the court's decision was that a DPS 

cannot be designated for the purpose of delisting. Details of the court's opinion in this case and 

other related cases indicate that the root concern is considerably broader. 

The broader pattern of court decisions indicate that the ESA requires a species to be 

well-distributed throughout its historic range. That view is also well supported by conservation 

scholarship (e.g., Vucetich eta/. 2006, Tadano 2007, Enzler & Bruskotter 2009, Geenwald 2009, 

Kamel 2010, Carroll eta/. 2010, and Bruskotter et al. 2014, and references therein). Wolves 

inhabit about 15% of their historic range within the conterminous United States (Suppl. 

Materials #2). That circumstance is a key reason for why wolves in the Western Great Lakes 

wolves should not be delisted. Addressing this concern would require the FWS to: 

(i) Develop policy on "significant portion of range" that is consistent with the ESA. I believe 

the courts will eventually decide that the current Fish and Wildlife Service policy on this 

topic is inconsistent with the ESA. ("Significant portion of its range" is a key phrase in the 

legal definition of endangered species.) 

(ii) Develop a robust national plan for wolf conservation and recovery. 

In 2011, wolves in Montana and Idaho were delisted by an act of Congress, i.e., a Congressional 

rider to the "Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act." That action 

compromised important opportunities for critical concerns and challenges to be worked out 

and addressed by key stakeholders (e.g., Fish and Wildlife Service, state-governments, NGOs, 

etc.). Congressional delisting did not ameliorate the concerns and challenges associated with 

the ESA or wolf conservation. 

§7. WOLF CONSERVATION IS VITAL TO AMERICA'S NATURAL HERITAGE. 

The health of many of our nation's ecosystems depends on the presence of healthy, functioning 

wolf populations (see Suppl. Material #3 for a pictorial summary). Wolves are important for a 

second reason. That is, wolves are important for what they represent. When we Americans talk 

about wolves we are speaking simultaneously about bath the four-legged creature and a 

creature that represents our understanding for how we ought to relate to nature. If the bald 

eagle is sacred as a symbol of our national spirit, then wolves are sacred as a symbol of our 

relationship with nature on the whole. 

America's natural heritage is a certain kind of relationship between humans and nature. 

To reflect on Americans' understanding of that relationship, think for a moment about the 

Golden Rule, treat others as you would consent to be treated in the same position. What if that 

ideal applied not only to humans, but also ta wildlife? That ideal would mean that we value 

wildlife -including wolves- not only for how they might advance human wellbeing, but also 

because they have a value in their own right. That belief means we embrace an obligation to 

treat wildlife- including wolves- fairly and with respect. Those obligations can be embraced 

while at the very same time embracing concern for and accommodating the genuine interests 

8 
208 


26784.192

of those affected by coexisting with wolves. Sociological evidence is clear that Americans 

embrace these beliefs by a wide margin (Vucetich et al. 2015; Bruskotter et al. 2017). The HELP 

for wildlife Act does not honor these American values. 

§8. CONCLUSION 

Our relationship with wolves is a bellweather for our relationship with nature and the nation's 

natural resources. For similar reasons, our treatment of wolves through the U.S. Endangered 

Species Act, 1973 (ESA) is also a bellweather for how we will treat the ESA in general and for the 

hundreds of species whose well-being depends on ESA protection. 

For those two reasons, we must get it right by discovering a healthy relationship with 

wolves. We will be defined, in part, by the kind of relationship we forge with wolves and the fair 

treatment of our fellow citizens who are impacted by wolves in a genuinely negative manner. 

Those relationships, whatever they may be, will say much about the kind of people that we are. 

Opportunities to work through some important challenges of conservation are impaired 

if and when Congress intervenes by making decisions about individual species in the context of 

the ESA. Such intervention can seem like an expedited solution, but its larger effect is to inhibit 

progress on the broader issues. Congress, the Fish and Wildlife Service, state wildlife agencies, 

and NGOs can all do better to provide stronger leadership on these issues. 

The American people are supportive of this work and we are more than able to handle 

this work. The values and will-power of the American people, on the whole, support the ESA 

and wolf conservation. We are also a sufficiently resourceful and generous people to fairly 

redress the concerns and negative attitudes held by a small segment of Americans. 

HELP for Wildlife Act is a Trojan horse and should be opposed. It includes some positive 

provisions, but its most important effect would be to undermine the Endangered Species Act 

and subvert the conservation of wolves. 

CITED SOURCES 

Barnes, J. 2013. Michigan's wolf hunt: How half truths, falsehoods and one farmer distorted reasons for historic 

hunt. Nov 3rd, 2013. URL: 

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/ll/michigans_wolf_hunt_how_half_t.html 

Bradford JB, Hobbs NT. 2008. Regulating overabundant ungulate populations: an example for elk in Rocky 

Mountain National Park, Colorado. Journal of Environmental Management, 86(3), 520-528. 

Browne~Nuflez C, Treves A, Macfarland D, Voyles Z, Turng C. 2015. Tolerance of wolves in Wisconsin: A mixedmethods examination of policy effects on attitudes and behavioral inclinations. Biological Conservation 

189: S9-71. 

Bruskotter JT, Schmidt RH, Tee I TL 2007, Are attitudes toward wolves changing? A case study in Utah. Biological 

Conservation 139, 211-218. 

Bruskotter JT, Vucetich JA, Enzler S, Treves A, Nelson MP, 2014. Removing protections for wolves and the future of 

the US Endangered Species Act (1973). Conservation Letters 7(4):401-7. 

Bruskotter JT, Vucetich JA, Wilson RS. 2016. Of bears and biases: scientific judgment and the fate of Yellowstone's 

grizzlies. The Conversation (June 21", 2016). URL: http://theconversation.com/of-bears-and-biasesscientific-judgment-and-the-fate-of-yellowstones-grizzlies-59570 

Bruskotter JT, Vucetich JA, Nelson MP. 2017. Animal Rights and Wildlife Conservation: conflicting or compatible. 

The Wildlife Professional. July/August issue, pages 40-43. 

Carroll C, Vucetich JA, Nelson MP, Rohlf DJ, Phillips MK. 2010. Geography and recovery under the US Endangered 

Species Act. Conservation Biology 24(2):395-403. 

Cart, J. 2013. U.S. sued over policy on killing endangered wildlife. LA Times 29 May 2013 URL: 

9 
209 


26784.193

Czech, B., Krausman, P.R., 1997. Public opinion on species and endangered species conservation. Endangered 

Species Update 14, 7-10. 

Dickman AJ, Macdonald EA, Macdonald DW. 2011. A review of financial instruments to pay for predator 

conservation and encourage human-carnivore coexistence. Proceedings of the National Academy afthe 

United States of America 108:13937-13944. 

Dickson, T. 2015. Shouldering its responsibility: FWP proposes additional hunting seasons to reduce the size of its 

burgeoning elk herds in parts of Montana. Montana Outdoors, Nov-Dec 2015. URL: 

h!_tR;i.Lf!-"fl_Bl.!Jl.o_yLrn.l.2~!9..o.oceLI:jTM L/ articiN~Q}~?hou lderSeaso!lcQ!m_!tl!2:J.I£.()~9l.~b£ 

Dud a, M.D., and M. Jones. ZOOS. Public opinion on and attitudes toward hunting. Pp. 18[}-199 in Transactions of 

the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Phoenix, Arizona, 23-28 March 2008 

(Wildlife Management Institute Publications Department, eds.). Wildlife Management Institute, 

Washington, D.C. 

Enzler SA, Bruskotter JT. 2009. Contested Definitions of Endangered Species: The Controversy Regarding How to 

Interpret the Phrase A Significant Portion of a Species Range. Va. Envtl. U, 27, 1. 

Ericsson G, Heberlein TA. 2003. Attitudes of hunters, locals, and the general public in Sweden now that the wolves 

are back. Bia/ogica/ Conservation 111, 149-1S9. 

George KA, Slagle KM, Wilson RS, Moeller SJ, Bruskotter JT. 2016. Changes in attitudes toward animals in the 

United States from 1978 to 2014. Bio/ogicol Conservation 201, Z37-Z42. 

Greenwald D. 2009. Effects on species' conservation of reinterpreting the phrase /I significant portion of its range11 

in the US Endangered Species Act. Conservation Biology 23(6):1374-1377. 

Harris Interactive (2011), Available at URL: 

Heberlein, T.A., 2012. Navigating environmental attitudes. Oxford University Press. 

Hogberg J, Treves A, Shaw B, Naughton-Treves l. 201S. Changes in attitudes toward wolves before and after an 

inaugural public hunting and trapping season: early evidence from Wisconsin's wolf range. Environmental 

Conservation, doi 10.1017IS037689291S00017X. 

Houston MJ, Bruskotter JT, Fan DP. 2010. Attitudes Toward Wolves in the United States and Canada: A Content 

Analysis of the Print News Media, 1999-2008. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 15:389-403. 

Johansson M, Karlsson J, Pedersen E, Flykt A., 2012. Factors governing human fear of brown bear and wolf. Human 

Dimensions of Wildlife 17, S8-74. 

Kamel A. 2010. Size, biology, and culture: persistence as an indicator of significant portions of range under the 

Endangered Species Act. Ecology LQ, 37, 525. 

McDonald-Madden, E. V. E., Baxter, P. W., & Possingham, H. P. (2008). Subpopulation triage: how to allocate 

conservation effort among populations. Conservation Biology, 22(3), 6S6-66S. 

McShea WJ, Underwood HB, Rap pole JH. 1997. The science of overabundance: deer population ecology and 

management. Smithsonian lnstitution Press, Washington DC, USA. 

Naughton~Treves L, Grossberg R, Treves A. 2003. Paying for tolerance: The impact of livestock depredation and 

compensation payments on rural citizens' attitudes toward wolves. Conservation Biology 17,1500-1511. 

Oosting, J. 2013. Michigan Senator apologizes for fictional wolf story in resolution: 1

1 am accountable, and lam 

sorry'. Mlive New Media, Nov. 7'h, 2013. URL: 

http :llwww .m live .com/news/in dex.ssf /20 13111/m i chiga n _sen a tor_ apologizes_ fo. htm I 

Slagle KM, Bruskotter JT, Wilson RS. 2012. The Role of Affect in Public Support and Opposition to Wolf 

Management. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 17,44-57. 

Tadano NM. 2007. Piecemeal delisting: Designating distinct population segments for the purpose of delisting gray 

wolf populations is arbitrary and capricious. Wash. L. Rev., 82, 795. 

Treves A, Naughton-Treves l, Shelley V. 2013. Longitudinal Analysis of Attitudes Toward Wolves. Conservation 

Biology 27:31S-323. 

Treves A, Krofel M, McManus J. 2016. Predator control should not be a shot in the dark. Frontiers in Ecology and 

the Environment, 14(7), 380-388. 

Tulchin Research (201S), Available at URL: 

USDA 2011. Cattle Death , 2011). URL: 

http:/ /usda .mann lib. cornell. ed ul usda I cu rrentl Catt De athiCattD e ath-OS-12-2011. pdf 

USFWS 2016. Memorandum to the Regional Director, Southeast Region, dated 12 Sept 2016. RE: Recommended 

Decisions in Response to Red Wolf Recovery Program Evaluation. URL: 

h ttps:/ /www. fws .gov I red wolf I d ocsl recommend ed-d ecis ions-in-response-to-red-wolf -recovery-programevaluat!on.pdf 

10 
210 


26784.194

Vucetich JA & DW Macdonald 2017. Some essentials on coexisting with carnivores. Open Access Government 

August edition, (in press) ''tl~iiL"111'""'lll 1iC~ ~tc>.fleno 

Vucetich JA, Nelson MP, Phillips MK. 2006. The normative dimension and legal meaning of endangered and 

recovery in the US Endangered Species Act. Conservation Biology 20(5):1383-90. 

Vucetich, J. A., Bruskotter, J. T., & Nelson, M. P. (2015). Evaluating whether nature1

s intrinsic value is an axiom of or 

anathema to conservation. Conservation Biology, 29(2), 321-332. 

Vucetich, J. A., Bruskotter, J. T., Nelson, M. P., Peterson, R. 0., & Bump, J. K. (2017). Evaluating the principles of 

wildlife conservation: a case study of wolf {Canis lupus) hunting in Michigan, United States. Journal of 

Mammo/ogy, 98(1), 53-64. 

11 
211 


26784.195

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL #1. 

The figure below, referenced in section 2 of this document, is taken from George et al. (2016). 

Wolf 

;n~ 

' tr. 

Coyote 

Cougar 

I I i 

12 
212 


26784.196

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL #2. A SERIES OF THREE ANNOTATED MAPS. 

Map I. Approximate Range (Historic & Current) OJ Gray Wolves In The Conterminous United 

States. 

Before human persecution, gray 

wolves occupied most of the 

conterminous United States (blue 

regions on the map). Currently, gray 

wolves occupy about 15% of their 

former range (purple regions on the 

map). The map is taken from 

Bruskotter et al. (2014) which 

explains how it would be feasible for 

wolves to inhabit more geographic 

range than they currently do. The 

blackened counties represent areas 

where wolves and humans would likely not coexist well, owing to higher human population 

density. (Note: This map overestimates the size of areas where human population density 

exceeds 142 people/km2 ) 

Map 2. Distinct Population Segments Of Gray Wolves Established By The United States Fish 

And Wildlife Service On April], 2003. 

E) ~~~~~~~:~e~:~~s:~~ct 

(includes Mexico) 

Endangered ~ Threatened 

- Nonessential Experimental Populations 

or threatened if treated as a species. 

CJ Notllsted 

_.... DPS Boundary 

A "distinct population segment" 

is a listable entity under The 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

According to FWS policy (61 Fed. 

Reg.4722,Feb.7,1996) 

determinations regarding the 

management of DPSs are to be 

based on the population's 

discreteness, its significant to 

the species to which it belongs, 

and whether the population 

would be deemed endangered 

The DPS provision offers flexibility in recovering species that occupy large geographic 

ranges. For example, if gray wolves living in the Eastern DPS had reached recovery, but wolves 

in the southwest DPS had not reached recovery, then wolves in the Eastern DPS could be 

removed from the list of endangered species and wolves from the southwest DPS could 

continue receiving the ESA protection necessary for recovery. The DPS policy can also enhance 

FWS's ability "to address local issues (without the need to list, recover, and consult rangewide) 

[and] result in a more effective program." /d. 

13 
213 


26784.197

The DPSs represented on the map above depict the gray wolves' historic range. The 

dark hatched areas within the Western DPS and the Southwestern DPS on the map represent 

areas in which FWS manages gray wolves as non-essential, experimental populations under 

section 10(j) of the ESA. That provision authorizes the release of an endangered or threatened 

species or subspecies outside their current range "if the Secretary determines that such release 

will further the conservation of such species." Section 10U)(B). Moreover, species managed 

under Section 10(j) do not receive the full protection otherwise provided by the ESA. For 

example, an experimental population deemed "not essential to the continued existence of the 

species," and which is not located within the National Refuge or National Park systems, is 

treated as a species proposed for listing and the FWS may not designated critical habitat for 

that population. Section lO(j)(C)(i)-(ii). 

Map 3. Revised Distinct Population Segments Of Wolves Established By The United States Fish 

And Wildlife Service. 

The Northern Rocky 

Mountain DPS was 

created in April 2009 (74 

FR 15123). Except for the 

state of Wyoming, gray 

wolves are delisted in this 

DPS. 

The Western Great 

Lakes DPS was created in 

December 2011 (76 FR 

81665). The Fish and Wildlife Service also delisted wolves in this DPS in December 2011. Three 

years later, in December 2014, a federal court ordered the Fish and Wildlife Service to reinstate 

full ESA protection for wolves living in this DPS. 

The most recent census of the wild Mexican wolf population living in Arizona and New 

Mexico, conducted in December of 2015, found only 97 individuals. Mexican wolves are listed 

as a subspecies. The Fish and Wildlife Service has been actively working on a recovery plan for 

Mexican wolves for the past 15 years. 

Red wolves are not represented on this map, but are discussed in section 3 of this 

testimony. 

14 
214 


26784.198

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL #3. 

The figure below, referenced in section 7 of this document, is taken from Ripple et al. 2014, 

which was published in Science. The figure represents a conceptual summary of 12 scientific 

publications, and is a conceptual representation of what is known about how wolves influence 

the health of ecosystems. 

Flq. 4. c-~ di'"'lf- .-..., ltlr1!tt <»11<1 tm..i- ltodnd t..-tm..l elfe<t• "' 

IJf•Y - "'"'lrodur.tioa 11110 1M lir .. lfl Yol-- oo».,..,.m. Woll tll""" .-tat> """" ~;oe,., 

~me~ fe, ~ '96) and tDYOte {?71. ~~.1~ .n:fn:~1 ef1Kh f\4~ ~ ~ !o' :;Jl'tnghotn 198'1, 

$m..·tt! rfYrmn.Jb i'99t" IM'Xld"· :;4.slh UOOl, ~trt'4ift mclf~ <;_)4\ bed~ t551, t:lt~l'h uon. trrr) 

p:o«J-("1ft;!(~ 16]1, -.l~ng.ot'\ t5J). ~Hi br<tt~ 15.6, 63t ~ ~ & W'ftQUt~ d1tg.r.tm, .tnd t10t .ttl~~ _.-m1 

trod'nt ll~~AOOrc, ,nl'! 1.hUan. 'et ~lt~e. ft'~ d~.tr'rl ~ t'J:)f Jd:jr~~ 4l'f'1 ;:tote"Of~.:tf top-tbwn t"~b 

!){ ;ru:tn.:fl., ~.em., ~nd ~ f!':~ tA:;IDtL\1 chr-~'~1), Jltttth Mt .til;Mrt u1 '!hr hilom.1Qnf ptt'dator 

tp.Jdd -~to :U-':"11* or .tdt.:tt ell 4re ;:tt>V 

15 
215 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Vucetich. 

Our Chairman will be coming back, Senator Barrasso. He is voting right now, and as soon as he gets back I am going to run and 

vote, so I am going to kill some time while we are waiting. 

Let me ask you a couple questions. First of all, confession is good 

for the soul, Dale. I didn’t chew out, because I never do that, but 

I admonished my staff because they didn’t let me introduce you. I 

always thought you were from Oklahoma. Then she looked it up, 

and you are not; you are from Tennessee; is that right? 

Well, anyway, you have come. This Partnership Act has really 

been great, and during the last couple administrations we have 

been able to successfully—in fact, when you were Director, you 

came out to Oklahoma; you talked to the landowners out there in 

western Oklahoma on our farmlands, our ranch lands. Somehow 

there is this notion that the landowners and the sportsmen somehow don’t care that much about the land, about preserving it, 

about the environmental benefits, and we find this to be completely 

wrong. 

In fact, when you were out there, and Dan Ashe, I think it was, 

found the same thing, and the Government had learned from them 

how to preserve and take care of the conservation concerns and all 

that. Has that been your experience? 

Mr. HALL. Yes, sir, it sure has. In my 40 years or so working in 

conservation, and at least 30 of those directly with people that own 

the land, we need to understand something that is very basic. In 

this country, 65 to 70 percent of all fish and wildlife habitat is in 

private ownership, and it is there because they care. It is there because they have been good land stewards and because they have 

wanted to have as much diversity and health on their lands as possible. 

And I have never found a farmer or a rancher or a forest owner, 

or anyone else, that didn’t truly love the land, and I think it is 

really unfortunate that anyone would make disparaging remarks 

such as these landowners don’t care. That is simply not the truth. 

They do care, and they are America’s first and foremost stewards 

of the resource. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, you know, I have heard that statement, 

and that is very disturbing. 

Ms. Coble, do you generally agree with that, that the landowners 

and sportsmen are first in line in trying to preserve the conservation? 

Ms. COBLE. Yes, very much so. Our experience in working with 

farmers across the watershed have been that they are very open 

and willing and able to make improvements on their land and take 

care of it. As I mentioned in my testimony, we look at these landowners as the first conservationists, and it is a very strong ethic 

that we find throughout the watershed. 

Senator INHOFE. And I would say also, in your particular job, you 

depend on landowners, on the private sector to provide a lot of the 

funding and a lot of the resources necessary to have that conservation. 

Ms. COBLE. The funding for the Bay restoration comes from 

many sources, and private landowners are one of those, yes. 

Senator INHOFE. Sure. 

216 

Do you agree with that, Mr. Crow? How are things in Arkansas? 

Mr. CROW. Yes, sir. In Arkansas, 90 percent of our land is privately owned. We feel a tremendous responsibility to those landowners to help them understand how they play a role in conservation and working with them. 

One particular example that we have right now is our quail restoration effort. We are reaching out to landowners all across the 

State to develop some focal areas to restore our quail habitat back 

to its former glory. So we are getting a lot of support for that, and 

I am really encouraged, as we visit with landowners, the level of 

interest that they have, whether hunters or not, in participating in 

conservation. 

Senator INHOFE. Oklahoma and Arkansas, we are about half-hog 

in Oklahoma, and I have to tell you that while I am very familiar— 

three of my kids graduated from Arkansas, so we are very familiar 

with it—with the ducks and the geese particularly. However, we 

compete on almost an even basis in the north central part of Oklahoma. As you know, we have flyways there that are almost unmatched. But generally speaking, they are the ones that really do 

want to have all the pristine and protection of the economy. 

How about in Wyoming? 

Mr. NESVIK. Well, thank you, Senator. Wyoming is very similar 

to what some of the other witnesses have testified to here. About 

50 percent of our State is private land. Simply put, we would not 

enjoy the abundance nor the diversity of wildlife species that we 

have in our State without private lands, and many times those private lands are some of the most productive lands and are oftentimes used by wildlife. 

And I guess, second, the second part of your question with regards to sportsmen, that is one of the values that we really value 

in Wyoming. Oftentimes, our best conservation efforts come as a 

consequence of sportsmen and landowners and others that love 

wildlife coming together to try to develop these projects, and nearly 

every single provision in this bill has some component of it that requires partnerships with private landowners and sportsmen. 

Senator INHOFE. And you know, of course, Senator Barrasso 

being the Chairman of this Committee, he has been very interested 

and the prime mover of this bill, which, by the way, we had some 

kind of a goof up because I was to be one of the original cosponsors, 

too. And he has now returned, so I am going to go vote. 

Senator Barrasso, welcome back. 

Senator BARRASSO [presiding]. Well, thank you very much, 

Chairman Inhofe, for your continued incredible leadership of this 

Committee. 

As I mentioned to the others, there will be people coming in and 

out, but I would like to start, if I could, Brian, with you with questioning. 

Could you just talk about how important it is in terms of outdoor 

recreation for the State of Wyoming in terms of our economy, and 

then will this HELP for Wildlife Act improve these opportunities? 

Mr. NESVIK. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. The short answer 

to your question is absolutely. As you and many of the esteemed 

members of this panel here today are well aware, habitat is the 

lifeblood of wildlife and also wide open spaces which provide opporVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:11 Sep 27, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00222 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\26784.TXT SONYA
217 

tunities for a variety of different outdoor activities like fishing, 

camping, outdoor photography, hiking, horseback riding, boating, 

hunting, wildlife viewing. 

All of these activities—and there are many, many others—are a 

major part of our State’s economy; they work symbiotically with the 

economy and are very important with regards to the provisions 

dealing with shooting ranges. 

In our State, as I think you are well aware, Governor Matt Mead 

has made providing shooting opportunities for all of its citizens a 

high priority. He strongly believes that outdoor activities connect 

people with the outdoors, and that is important, and that is an important part of our values and our culture in our State. So the provisions in this bill that encourage partnership with Federal land 

management agencies is very much in alignment with our economy 

and also with our culture. 

With regard to the provisions on allowing States to make decisions on the use of lead tackle, that is another very important component of our State’s recreation and economy. Fishing is a big part 

of what a lot of our folks spend their extra time doing, so having 

that ability is also important. 

Then, last, I think the regulatory certainty that comes with the 

provisions on the migratory bird baiting is another component that 

is helpful for both landowners, farmers, and also hunters, alike. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Mr. Hall, the HELP for Wildlife Act extends the authorization of 

appropriations for the North American Wetlands Conservation Act 

for 5 years. Your written testimony talks about the projects you 

mentioned in Wyoming that have been funded by the Act. You 

mentioned the protection of ocean lake wetlands in Wyoming, a 

$75,000 grant. I think you stated it ‘‘provides important habitat to 

a variety of migratory birds, including several species of waterfowl, 

shorebirds, many other wetland-dependent species.’’ 

Could you provide more examples as to how the North American 

Wetland Conservation Act has been used to enhance wildlife habitat in other States? 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome that question 

because many people believe, unfortunately, that the North American Wetlands Conservation Act is the North American Waterfowl 

Conservation Act. It is the North American Wetlands Conservation 

Act. And when we do a project, and we do it at Ducks Unlimited 

alone, we average about 500 projects a year of one form or another. 

And by the Fish and Wildlife Service’s estimate, those projects, 

each one benefits up to 900 species. 

I want to say that again. Between 700 and 900 species are benefited by these wetlands projects because, first of all, all wildlife 

needs water. So, if nothing else, it is a watering place for many of 

these. But these wetlands create the whole ecosystem, the food 

chain all the way from the micro invertebrates up through the top 

predators. 

So throughout the nation these kinds of projects are benefiting 

all the people. They purify water; they help to hold back flood damage by storing water. Along the coastlines wetlands are known to— 

if a hurricane is traveling over emergent marsh, for every 2.7 miles 

218 

that it travels over emergent marsh, the storm surge is reduced by 

1 foot. 

There are many, many benefits that come from creating these 

wetlands projects. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Mr. Nesvik, May 1st, 2017, U.S. Fish and Wildlife issued a final 

ruling, again delisting the gray wolf in Wyoming under the Endangered Species Act pursuant to a mandate by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. This puts the management of 

the gray wolf where it should have been all along, under the control of Wyoming, not Washington. 

In the words of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ‘‘The Court’s 

decision recognizes the recovered status of gray wolves and affirms 

the Service’s determination that the State’s regulatory mechanisms 

are sufficient for conserving wolves under its authority.’’ 

Talk about what kind of actions you are going to take to protect 

the gray wolves in Wyoming under your authority and to maintain 

adequate numbers needed to maintain that healthy population. 

Mr. NESVIK. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. Excellent question. I will 

start by just saying very simply implementation of Wyoming’s wolf 

management plan is the short answer to your question. Our Governor, our elected legislature, our Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, all of our elected leaders in the State and appointed leaders have pledged support and commitment to manage for healthy 

and viable populations of wolves in our State into the future. 

As I have stated in my testimony, during those brief 2 years 

when we did have the opportunity to manage wolves, we did it with 

a tremendous track record; we did it informed by science in an 

adaptive manner and with the public involved, the public for whose 

wildlife we manage as participants. Specifically, our plan calls for 

management of wolves and the number of breeding pairs above the 

minimum requirements of the Fish and Wildlife Service; it requires 

an adaptive approach, meaning that as the science changes, conditions on the ground change, so does the management; it requires 

focused monitoring through the use of telemetry collars and classification flights. When Wyoming had this authority before, we collared over 70 wolves to make sure that we were very closely monitoring the status of the population. 

Our plan requires the monitoring of genetic interchange; it requires us to provide and facilitate a zone, a flex zone where wolves 

can move back and forth between subpopulations; it calls for tightly regulated hunting seasons; it requires, just like we do with every 

other species, to provide law enforcement and to ensure that these 

regulations related to wolf management are enforced; and it also 

requires citizen involvement. 

So I think with all of those things, proven track record, commitments by elected leaders, I think demonstrates clearly that we are 

ready again, for the third time, to take over wolf management and 

do an excellent job at it. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Crow, under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, there are 

substantial fines for those who bait and hunt migratory birds over 

219 

presently undefined baited areas. The problem is that farming 

practices carried out to produce a marketable crop in Arkansas, 

and recommended by the applicable State agency under the Department of Agriculture, are often in conflict with the baiting prohibition. 

As head of the Arkansas State wildlife agency, can you provide 

this Committee with your observations on the confusion that has 

resulted from the contradiction? Do you believe section 3 of the 

HELP for Wildlife Act would resolve this situation? Also, it is not 

only the farmers, but it is the hunters that certainly don’t want to 

put their reputation on the line, their freedom. So, again, could you 

comment on that? 

Mr. CROW. Yes, sir, Senator Boozman. We actually had a situation in 2012, we had a drought that resulted in an early harvest 

of a lot of our rice crops, and then an early summer rain that produced kind of an unintended ratoon rice crop. Our local cooperative 

extension service advised our producers to either roll or plow those 

crops and to return those nutrients to the soil, which would clearly 

fall within the parameters of normal agricultural practice. However, the interpretation from the Fish and Wildlife Service maintained that those fields would be baited and that hunters would not 

be allowed to hunt waterfowl over them. 

This created a lot of confusion, and it caused a lot of difficulties 

for our producers and our farmers. I do believe that section 3 will 

be very helpful in terms of consistency and clarification for our 

hunters and for our producers and landowners. I think the biggest 

component of that is the local input; it is the consideration, what 

is the normal agricultural practice being pushed out at that State 

level, and I think that would be very helpful not only for our producers, but for our hunters. 

Senator BOOZMAN. In your testimony, one of the things that you 

highlighted was the importance of enhanced State level coordination between USDA and the cooperative extension service and 

State agencies. Why do you feel that enhanced State level coordination is so important when defining normal agricultural practices? 

Mr. CROW. I believe that it is critically important because it is 

not a one size fits all type of determination. I mean, what is normal 

practice in McCurtain County, Oklahoma may not be the same as 

in Lee County, Arkansas, or Bossier Parish, Louisiana. There is a 

divergence of practices that are conducted at the local level. 

Hunting and fishing is a regulated activity, and there are a lot 

of regulations, and I think it is incumbent upon conservation organizations to make sure that those that have regulatory responsibilities to make sure that those regulations are not confusing, they 

are not difficult for our hunters to understand, or for our producers 

or for landowners. 

These are potential barriers for participation in hunting activities, and I think at a time in our nation when we struggle to encourage people to participate in conservation through hunting, that 

ambiguous and difficult regulations can be a barrier to that. So I 

think it is extremely important. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Let’s talk a little bit about NAWCA. Currently, Arkansas has 17 completed or underway projects. Our State 

has been able to use $11.7 million in NAWCA funding, along with 

220 

another $41.7 million in partner contributions, to conserve a total 

of 77,089 acres of wildlife habitat. Would Arkansas be able to conserve that much wildlife without the NAWCA program? 

Mr. CROW. No, sir. There would be no way that we could maintain that level of work absent the assistance that comes to us 

through the NAWCA program. The beauty of this program is it is 

private landowner friendly, it is non-regulatory, and it is an incentive based program. 

I think it is interesting to note, and worthy to note, that the contribution, the in kind contributions almost triple, through whether 

it be our agency or organizations like Ducks Unlimited that contribute to these programs is absolutely essential for what we are 

doing in wetland conservation to have this program. 

Senator BOOZMAN. So really great public-private partnerships. 

Mr. CROW. Absolutely. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. I know I asked quite a few questions while we were waiting for our Chairman to get back from voting, but I have a couple more. 

By the way, in your absence, I told Mr. Crow about our competition between Arkansas and Oklahoma in our hunting and fishing 

wildlife, and what I was starting to say when Senator Barrasso 

came back in, after I was praising him for what he has done with 

this bill, I just said they also have another Senator there, and he 

is really big into fish and wildlife. In fact, the criticism that we get 

from his staff is that he goes off to commitments around the State, 

he keeps his fly rod in his trunk, and if he gets over a stream, he 

will stop there and fish for 2 or 3 hours and completely miss his 

meeting. So he is another one who is interested in this. 

I had just a couple questions. 

Mr. Vucetich, you had made a couple comments. One was that 

fewer Americans are hunting now. I don’t know where you get that. 

Was Oklahoma included in that study? 

Mr. VUCETICH. No, this is understood to occur throughout the nation, and in particular in the Midwest, where my comments were 

mostly focused on. But I don’t believe there is much dispute about 

the notion that participation in hunting is generally on the decline. 

Senator INHOFE. Come to Oklahoma; you may find that is not the 

case. 

You did make a statement, talking about the wolf, that they are 

not treated fairly and with respect. I was writing down what you 

said. 

I would like to kind of get another view on that, if you would 

have one, Mr. Nesvik. 

Mr. NESVIK. Thank you, Senator. I guess I would respectfully 

disagree with that statement. I don’t believe that that is the case. 

Certainly, in my State and in my workings with other States in the 

West, I don’t believe that that is the case. I think that the management plans and the attitudes and the participation by sportsmen 

in the past have reflected this is just another opportunity for another species. 

221 

We are very fortunate to have a diversity and abundance of species in our State. It is another species of wildlife that people have 

an opportunity to participate in their management, whether that 

be through active management or through being able to have wildlife viewing opportunities. So I don’t agree with that statement. 

Senator INHOFE. All right, well, those are the only two questions 

I had. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Again, we appreciate your presence, your testimony, and your willingness to respond to our questions. There are 

a number of other committees that are meeting right now, and I 

think there are probably hearings that maybe normally would be 

in the afternoon have been moved to the morning. So don’t view 

the presence or the absence of members here as not caring a great 

deal about these issues. 

I think, Mr. Crow, I heard during the introduction or your comments, I think the Marine Corps was mentioned. Is that true? 

Mr. CROW. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Senator CARPER. And your name was linked to the term Marine 

Corps. What is the connection, sergeant major? 

Mr. CROW. I am sorry? 

Senator CARPER. What is the connection with you and the Marine Corps? 

Mr. CROW. I retired from the Marine Corps in 2007. 

Senator CARPER. And I just want to thank you. 

Mr. CROW. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARPER. And say semper fi. 

Mr. CROW. Thank you, as well. 

Senator CARPER. OK, Navy salutes Marine Corps. Different uniforms, same team. 

Let me just start with John Vucetich. Does anyone ever mispronounce your name? 

Mr. VUCETICH. I am pretty easy about how it is pronounced, so, 

no. 

Senator CARPER. I expect a lot of people call you John. 

Mr. VUCETICH. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. We have heard today that some stakeholders 

and wildlife managers are frustrated with the lengthy process associated with recovering and delisting the gray wolf. In your view, is 

the process too long? And do you think that a longer road to recovery within the bounds of the Endangered Species Act might be appropriate? 

Mr. VUCETICH. When we think about how long it has taken to 

come this far with wolves, over the last 15 years they have been 

kind of center stage, especially for the Fish and Wildlife Service, 

I think it is important to keep in mind two issues. One is that 

wolves are symbols of nature for many Americans; they are symbols of all of the things that many of us love about nature, and they 

are symbols for all the things that many of us hate about nature. 

So what that means is that when we have conversations about 

wolves, we are having conversations about our relationship with 

nature on the whole. 

222 

Sometimes that is infused with a distracting amount of emotion. 

Nevertheless, they are a proxy for our attitudes overall. That, I 

think, demands that we be cautious and take the time necessary 

to go through this, because our understanding of our relationship 

with nature is not something that we will just settle on some day 

and be done discussing; it is an ongoing sort of thing. 

To be a little bit more specific, many of the issues pertaining to 

wolves in the Endangered Species Act has to do with the legal aspect of the definition of significant portion of range. Without going 

into the legal details of it, what it amounts to is that we, as an 

American people, still don’t know what it means to be an endangered species. 

How much does a species have to be impaired by us humans for 

us to say that is no longer good enough? That is what is at the 

heart of the issue about wolves with the Endangered Species Act. 

It is an extremely basic question that affects our understanding of 

the Endangered Species Act overall. It is a very difficult question. 

Fish and Wildlife Service has had a very hard time trying to answer it, in part because it is a hard question. What I think they 

need from Congress is encouragement and leadership on answering 

it. And when delisting riders, like the one we are speaking about 

today, are accompanied with a bill that doesn’t help the Fish and 

Wildlife Service focus on solving the problem, it kind of gets them 

off the hook. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thank you. 

A question for Kim Coble. We applaud your efforts and those of 

others who have worked with you to facilitate and support the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay to good health, but would we be 

able to restore, protect, preserve the Bay if the Chesapeake Bay 

program did not exist? Specifically, would the Bayside States of 

Maryland and Virginia be able to entice more distant States like 

Delaware, like Pennsylvania, like West Virginia and New York to 

reduce the flow of pollutants from their States and otherwise help 

them to protect the Chesapeake from upstream threats? 

Ms. COBLE. Thank you, Senator Carper. No. The Federal partnership is critical to the Bay restoration effort, and that has been 

borne out over decades of work. When you have six States, you 

have DC, you have many different governments, different funding 

programs, different perspective, different politics. To have an umbrella of the Federal partnership allows for better coordination, it 

allows for better dialogue, it allows for better science, and it allows 

for a better outcome for the whole effort. 

Senator CARPER. All right. I think you may have begun to answer this question, but how does this program, the Chesapeake 

Bay program, overcome the difficulties that downstream States 

have in working with their upstream counterparts? 

Ms. COBLE. It is an interesting question about the relationship 

of downstream versus upstream, because we are all part of the watershed. So New York is the furthest State upstream than Pennsylvania. Each State has a role to play in the Bay clean up in that 

all their rivers and streams that feed it are part of it. So when 

Pennsylvania invests dollars and effort to improve their own water 

quality, they are also improving the health of the Bay. 

223 

Now, Maryland and Virginia, being the downstream States, obviously want to ensure that Pennsylvania does everything it can, and 

this is again where the Federal partnership becomes key. Virginia 

and Maryland can work much more closely in assuring Pennsylvania has resources it needs, has the political will it needs to get 

the job done because the Federal partners are at the table as well. 

Senator CARPER. OK, thanks so much. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

that the Committee is holding this hearing to scrutinize the HELP 

for Wildlife Act. While this bill includes several important beneficial conservation provisions that I support, I am concerned about 

other parts of the bill that would have some very negative impacts 

on the Endangered Species Act and the regulation of toxic chemicals. I am concerned that the TSCA provision in section 9 of this 

bill is a solution in search of a problem that would tie the hands 

of the EPA from ever regulating the components of sports fishing 

equipment. 

This provision is unnecessary and does nothing to change the 

status quo for recreational fishermen. The EPA is not currently 

seeking to regulate sports fishing equipment under TSCA at the 

Federal level. However, it would be shortsighted for us to prevent 

future TSCA regulation permanently should the science warrant a 

change in the future. 

I am also concerned that this bill would legislate a delisting of 

gray wolves from the Endangered Species Act and prevent judicial 

review. Listing decisions should be based on science, and not politics. 

On that topic, I would like to ask the witnesses a few questions. 

Mr. Nesvik, you have raised concerns about livestock populations 

that have been impacted, wolf depredation. On average, how many 

cattle and sheep are killed by wolves each year in Wyoming? 

Mr. NESVIK. Thank you, Senator. The number of cattle and sheep 

that are killed annually that is attributed to wolf depredation fluctuates widely. Last year was a record year, and I can get back to 

you with specific numbers, but I can tell you it was in the hundreds, over 200 cattle that were attributed to wolf depredations. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. And how does that number compare to 

other predators like coyotes, mountain lions, and bears? 

Mr. NESVIK. So in Wyoming we also investigate and compensate 

landowners who have damages that are a consequence of grizzly 

bears, mountain lions, and black bears. And in total, of all of the 

different species that cause damage across our State, not only to 

cattle or sheep, but also to standing crops or to agricultural operations, wolves account for about 37 percent of that total amount of 

damage to livestock producers and also farmers. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Dr. Vucetich, is wolf delisting necessary to 

protect livestock from wolf attacks, and are there effective methods 

for protecting livestock that can be used by farmers, ranchers, and 

government agencies today? 

Mr. VUCETICH. Yes, there are effective methods for protecting 

livestock. They include non-lethal control, there would be some instances where lethal control is appropriate, and also for financial 

compensation for these losses are appropriate. 

224 

Senator GILLIBRAND. For Ms. Coble, as you know, New York 

State is part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and New York 

State receives approximately $2.7 million through the Chesapeake 

Bay Watershed Program for conservation projects. What types of 

projects are funded in New York to conserve the Chesapeake Bay, 

and is there more that can be done to help New York meet its conservation goals for the Chesapeake Bay? 

Ms. COBLE. Thank you, Senator. Generally speaking, New York 

is one of the six States that feed into the Chesapeake Bay watershed and therefore have goals to reduce the pollution coming down 

the Susquehanna from New York. The resources for New York, I 

can get you the specifics from it, but there are pollution reducing 

programs specifically for agricultural purposes, agricultural farms, 

as well as for stormwater runoff. So I don’t have the dollar figures 

right handy. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Will you submit that for the record? 

Ms. COBLE. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you all for being here today, and 

thank you for testifying. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you so very much, Senator Gillibrand. 

Senator Booker. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Some of my comments want to pick up where Senator Gillibrand 

was, but as we consider this bill, what is astonishing to me is that 

we just have to acknowledge that we are in the midst of a global 

extinction crisis on the planet Earth of stunning proportion. It is 

estimated that we have now lost more than half of all wildlife on 

the planet Earth in the last five decades, and the fact that we are 

not talking about this in the context of the severity of this mass 

extinction that we are under right now is chilling to me. This 

should be an issue for Congress, and it should be an issue for public. 

One in six species on the planet Earth are threatened with extinction in this century alone, and that is why the Endangered Species act, which has saved 99 percent of the wildlife under its protection from extinction, is such an incredibly important law, and it 

is why the ESA decisions must be based on science, without interference from Congress. 

So, Mr. Vucetich, I just want to focus some questions on you, if 

I may, in follow up to Senator Gillibrand. 

So section 7 of the bill that we are discussing would delist gray 

wolves in the western Lakes for endangered species, and you know, 

obviously, in 2014 the District Court here in Washington struck 

down the exact same efforts to delist the wolves. As you know, 

wolves in the United States currently inhabit only 15 percent of 

their historic range. So we have savagely—by 85 percent—cut their 

range. 

You specifically have written a lot of the scholarly literature on 

the Endangered Species Act, so, based on your expertise, can you 

just explain whether the western Great Lakes wolves have met the 

ESA’s requirements for delisting? 

Mr. VUCETICH. No, they haven’t, and the main reason is because, 

as you mentioned, wolves in the lower 48 have only been recovered 

225 

to 15 percent of their former range, and the Endangered Species 

Act uses language that is shrouded in this phase ‘‘significant portion of range.’’ 

What the courts have indicated in about a dozen court cases over 

about a 10-year period is that that phrase means that the Endangered Species Act says that recovery requires the species be relatively widely distributed throughout its former range. 

There are some difficulties and challenges in understanding exactly what ‘‘widely distributed’’ means, but there doesn’t seem to be 

much dispute that 15 percent doesn’t qualify. That is what the 

great concern is with these court cases. That is why every time the 

Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to delist under our meager conditions for wolves, the courts have struck them down, because it 

violates that particular principle of the Endangered Species Act. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you very much. And we do know the 

data about the damage to livestock. This is not an issue at question. Right now, less than one-half of 1 percent of livestock losses 

are attributable to wolves. Less than one-half of 1 percent. Concerns, nevertheless, have been raised about their negative economic 

impacts. 

Is there a way to think about the economic impacts of wolves 

that considers the broader ecological benefits that wolves provide 

and the sort of cost-benefit analysis? 

Mr. VUCETICH. Yes, yes, absolutely. As you mentioned, there is 

a great deal of focus on the negative impact of wolves economically, 

and it is mostly focused on livestock. To cite two particular examples, in Wisconsin and Minnesota, they spend in the neighborhood 

of $150,000 or $200,000 a year compensating for that. Those losses 

absolutely need to be weighed against the benefit of wolves. And 

I am talking about relatively hard core economic benefits. 

One of the great troubles in the Great Lakes are over-abundant 

deer populations. Over-abundant deer are damaging to forestry. In 

particular, when there are too many deer, hemlock can’t grow, 

white pine can’t grow, several other species. If wolves are allowed 

to do what they do, they would better over-abundant deer populations and it would give a very different impression of the economic cost. 

There is also a human life issue, too, because, again, about a 

dozen people are killed a year in each of these States when their 

cars hit deer. So there is a sense of maybe putting human life in 

front of livestock, if you would expand it that way. 

Senator BOOKER. Absolutely. So just in a sheer balance sheet 

analysis to taxpayers around the United States of America, the 

ESA makes economic sense. 

But let’s continue for a second. If the bill written becomes law, 

Great Lakes wolves would lose all of their Federal protections, and 

management of wolves would be turned over to the States. Between 

2012 and 2014 Great Lakes wolves enjoyed those protections. But 

during the time State wildlife managers permitted some incredibly 

cruel methods to kill hundreds of wolves, and these include savage 

cable neck snares; steel jawed leg hold traps, which affect other 

wildlife, even our pets, these savage things that I have worked in 

a bipartisan way to try to ban from our national wildlife refuges; 

pack trailing of hounds. 

226 

So, in your opinion, do you think these methods are considered 

as ‘‘fair chase’’ wolf hunting methods? 

Mr. VUCETICH. No, they are not fair. One of the things that I 

think is important about wildlife management, about hunting programs in particular, is that we don’t just simply hunt things; we 

hunt things for a reason, and the reason has to be a good reason, 

and then the methods have to be appropriate along with that. And 

there is pretty good reason to think that a lot of wolf hunting is 

motivated by hatred for wolves, and never in our American hunting 

heritage have we ever hunted something because we hated it. This 

is the first time in our history that we have decided to do that. 

The other thing, just one more example, again, the example in 

Michigan, the plan for hunting wolves was all focused on reducing 

livestock depredations. It is important to reduce livestock depredations, but hunting is an absolutely silly way to do it; it doesn’t 

make any sense with the science. So, once again we are hunting 

and killing wolves for reasons that doesn’t make sense, and in that 

sense it is not fair or respectful to wolves. 

Senator BOOKER. I am just going to push one final question. Arguments in favor of wolf conservation tend to focus exclusively on 

the benefits that wolves provide to humans, and whether those 

benefits outweigh any negative impacts on us. This strikes me as 

sort of a limited view. So much of this analysis is done on a limited 

view, including that economic analysis we mentioned before. 

So my final question is, is there a broader perspective that we 

should be considering when discussing wolf conservation and management that takes into account how residents of the Great Lakes 

States and other public folks perceive wolves? 

Mr. VUCETICH. Absolutely. There is good sociological evidence 

that indicates something like 80 to 90 percent of Americans say 

that wildlife have value beyond their economic value and beyond 

any value to humans. In other words, 80 to 90 percent of Americans believe that wildlife, including wolves, have value for its own 

sake. This is across demographic categories; men, women, wealthy 

people, middle class people, liberals, conservatives. It is a very, 

very widespread belief. 

When you believe that something has value in its own right, that 

is the trigger for saying that it needs to be treated fairly and with 

respect, and I cited just a moment ago some important examples 

how wolves are not treated that way. 

Senator BOOKER. Sir, thank you very much for your testimony, 

even though you have an over-abundance of hair. 

Mr. Chairman, can I, for the record—— 

Senator BARRASSO. Be added as a cosponsor, did you say? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOOKER. Cosponsor of the requirement that all witnesses 

shave their heads, I would be very happy for that. This guy makes 

me feel really insecure. 

Mr. VUCETICH. We can find a compromise, maybe. 

Senator BOOKER. OK. We can meet midway. 

But there is a book that I did with my Booker Book Club, sir, 

which I think you might be a member of, I am not sure. We did 

a book called The Sixth Extinction by Elizabeth Kolbert. It is a 

devastating book that talks about the mass extinction going on in 

227 

the United States of America. May I enter that book into the 

record? 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you very much. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

[The referenced information is available in Committee files.] 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Nesvik, you know what is interesting? In 

your written testimony you discuss the North American Wetlands 

Conservation Act, the reauthorization that is in this HELP for 

Wildlife Act, and you make a point that about one-third of all endangered species are wetlands related species. So is it safe to say 

that reauthorization of this program in this bill is actually going 

to help protect many endangered species? And can you maybe 

elaborate on that a little bit on that? 

Mr. NESVIK. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. I think that one of the 

important tenets of wildlife conservation is the fact that water is 

absolutely important to all living things on the planet. I think that 

is understood by most. But healthy wetlands are an indicator of 

overall ecosystem health, and Mr. Hall did an excellent job of talking about some of the details that really give rise to that analysis 

and that conclusion. 

There are, as I stated in my testimony and as you just reiterated, 

a wide, wide range of endangered species that are what we call 

wetland obligates, species like the Kendall Warm Springs dace. 

That is a species that is only found in one particular spot in the 

Upper Green River Basin of Wyoming, and that is where we conducted a $1 million NAWCA project, specifically in that particular 

area. 

The Wyoming toad is another wetland obligate endangered species that relies heavily on wetlands, to name a couple Wyoming 

species. 

Other species include the whooping crane, the southwestern willow flycatcher, piping plover, least tern, Yuma clapper rail in the 

southwest, the desert pupfish. I bet you have never heard of that 

one, Mr. Chairman. And a variety of plants as well, just to name 

a very few. 

Senator BARRASSO. Great. Thank you very much. 

Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, first of all, thank you for keeping the hearing open, as I was tardy getting back from the floor. 

I appreciate that. I very much appreciate your leadership on this 

bill, as I said as I was introducing Kim Coble. 

This bill is important for many reasons, and I appreciate each of 

the witnesses’ testimony as to various parts of it. I am obviously 

very much interested in the impact that this legislation has on the 

Chesapeake Bay, and I say that because we have heard from the 

OMB director that it is important to have authorized programs, 

Mr. Chairman. I agree with that. We are the authorizing Committee. It is important for us to speak. 

And we have been funding the Chesapeake Bay effort with that 

authorization for many, many years, and under the Chairman’s 

leadership we now have the opportunity to have an authorized program, which gives it a much stronger standing. It has had strong 

228 

standing in Congress; it has been supported in Congress. But having authorization puts it in a much stronger position. 

We have also had challenges, and this is not alone, in regards 

to attacks on continuation of the funding of the program. And this 

puts us in a much stronger position when you have an authorization. 

What was particularly important—and Kim, you have commented about this—the Chesapeake Bay program is a modest program as far as Federal funds, $73 million. It is a relatively small 

amount of the total resources that goes into cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay. The largest amount of resources, by the way, come from 

local governments, State governments, more so than the Federal 

Government, just so we understand that the taxpayer support is 

more local than it is Federal. And we take pride in that. 

But the Federal partnerships are very important, and the Chesapeake Bay program provides the glue, as Kim testified, to make 

sure that we are living up to everyone’s obligations. It really keeps 

all the stakeholders focused that there is an overseer that makes 

sure that we do what we say we are going to do, and that provides 

the operations and the grants to make sure that that in fact takes 

place. 

There are many parts to the Chesapeake Bay program. Several 

are included in this legislation. We have already talked about the 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation; we have talked about the 

National Fish Habitat partnership, the National American Wetlands Conservation Act, the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and 

Watertrails Network and Grant programs, all those feed in to the 

support of the Chesapeake Bay. And I could mention the Revolving 

Fund for wastewater and clean water, which very much fits into it. 

I could mention the farm bill with the Regional Conservation Partnership Program. 

So there are a lot of pieces that fit into the Chesapeake Bay, and 

I say that because it is the largest estuary in our hemisphere; it 

has been declared by Presidents as a national treasure. Kim mentioned the number of species that are included in the Bay, the economic impact of the Bay, the quality of life, the iconic nature, that 

so many people live in the watershed. Why? Because they love the 

Chesapeake Bay, and it grows every year, presenting additional 

challenges. 

So today’s hearing on many parts of the Chesapeake Bay program is really a very, very important ingredient on the continued 

efforts that have been made now for close to 40 years, going back 

to Harry Hughes as Governor of Maryland when I was in the State 

legislature. 

So, Kim, I just want to give you one last chance to sort of comment as to the importance of the Chesapeake Bay program itself, 

that $73 million that is currently being appropriated and which 

here is authorized at $90 million, how important that is to the 

overall effort. 

Ms. COBLE. Thank you, Senator Cardin, and also, thank you for 

your leadership for decades on the Bay. I am not sure we would 

be where we are today without you, so thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. I just would point out Senator Mathias started 

the efforts, the great Republican Senator from Maryland; Senator 

229 

Sarbanes continued that effort, and I have his seat. Of course, my 

colleague, Senator Mikulski, has been a great champion; and on 

the other side of the aisle John Sarbanes has been one of our great 

leaders. But I thank you for those comments. 

Ms. COBLE. Probably the best point I can make regarding this is 

to actually talk about the health of the Bay, and what we have 

seen is that it is recovering. I never really thought that, really, in 

my career I would see the improvement in water quality, the improvement in habitat, and the improvement in the industries that 

are supported by it that we have seen over the last couple of years. 

Underwater grasses are rebounding; the famous blue crab is coming back; oysters are doing better; striped bass are coming back. 

Every other year we do a State of the Bay Report where we give 

numeric indicators. We gave the highest rating to the health of the 

Bay this last year that we have ever give, at 34, and it is very exciting to see that this Chesapeake Bay program, the Bay Agreement that is governing the clean up and the restoration of our 

land, is working. 

It is a true sign of success, and it is a model, I think, for across 

the country. It will not work without Federal leadership. It will not 

work without the Chesapeake Bay program and the other programs 

in this bill. And as you said, Senator Cardin, it is a modest 

amount, but it is a critical amount. That oversight and umbrella 

is the glue that holds the whole thing together. So it is with great 

support for those programs in this bill that we are here to testify 

in support of it. 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, let me say in conclusion I also 

want to mention support for the neotropical bird, which includes, 

as I am sure the Chairman knows, the Baltimore Oriole, which is 

a neotropical bird. And we love the Baltimore Orioles, and they 

won last night, Mr. Carper, 12 to 1. Just want you to know. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BARRASSO. Let the record reflect. We would also like to 

introduce for the record, ask unanimous consent for a number of 

different submissions of articles, letters, and testimonies in support 

of the legislation. Without objection. 

Thank you. 

[The referenced information appears earlier in the printed hearing.] 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. As Senator Cardin prepares to leave, let me just 

point out I am just grateful that his moment for victory on behalf 

of his Orioles did not occur at the expense of my Detroit Tigers. To 

be continued. 

Ms. Coble, one thing about your testimony that strikes me is that 

the far broader purpose of the Chesapeake Bay program to address 

issues that are also highly relevant in this bill before us, restoration, preservation of critical habitats, notably, wetlands and other 

fishery and wildlife habitat. 

I just want to take maybe a minute, if you will, to elaborate on 

this broader mission of the program beyond water quality and talk 

about the partnerships that broader mission entails among Federal 

agencies, among States, nonprofits and business. Who is involved 

in all these issues in all these efforts? 

230 

Ms. COBLE. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Briefly, if you would. 

Ms. COBLE. We have often said what happens on the land has 

more impact than what is happening in the water, because the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed landmass is so enormous, 64,000 

square miles. The habitat that is within that watershed is integral. 

All my colleagues at the table here have talked about the importance and interplay between the animals, the species that live in 

it and the quality of that; the need for that habitat; the bird flyway 

on the Delmarva peninsula is critical; the wetlands serving it. So 

all of those habitats are important for our wildlife, important for 

anglers and sportsmen, and important for water quality. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thanks. 

I was privileged to be Governor of our State from 1993 to 2001, 

and it was at a time when I think you said there was a score, if 

you will, for the restoration of the Bay gave a 34, said it is the best 

it has been for quite a while. From 1993 to 2001 the prospect was 

not so encouraging. 

One of the things that we found out, what we are doing in Delaware, we raise a lot of chickens in my State, your State too, but 

in Sussex County, Delaware, we raise more chickens than any 

county in America, and they create a lot of chicken manure. 

What we were doing is stacking up the chicken manure, cleaning 

our houses and stacking it up in farm fields, and waiting until 

somewhere down the line to be able to use it as a fertilizer for the 

nitrogen and phosphorous content. And the rains would come, wash 

the nutrients into ditches and creeks and streams, and eventually 

rivers and eventually into the Chesapeake Bay. 

I remember gathering a lot of farmers in my State together in 

southern Delaware and some folks from environmental communities, from the Department of Natural Resources, Environmental 

Control, including the fellow sitting right behind me, Christophe 

Tulou; he used to be our secretary. We talked about the Golden 

Rule, and I said to the farmers, how would you feel, how would we 

feel if folks over in Maryland were somehow polluting whether it 

is the air or the water that comes over and diminishes our ability 

to make a living? How would we feel about that? And we all agreed 

that would not be a good thing. 

And we tried to figure out how to actually be guided by the Golden Rule, we know about love thy neighbor. We came up with this 

Nutrient Management Commission. It was farmer led, and the 

final result was every farm where they had poultry litter and they 

spread the nutrients on farm fields, they had to have a nutrient 

plan and how to do that. They had to be essentially trained to do 

that and certified to do that. 

And we have had that in place now for almost 20 years, and it 

has worked. It has worked. Again, it involved the efforts of environmentalists and our regulatory agency in the State, but it was really 

the farmers, who are and can be some of our best environmentalists, who were right there at the vanguard. And I am very, very 

proud of what we have accomplished, and at the end of the day, 

to be a much better neighbor to Maryland, and we have been for 

a long, long time. 

231 

We applaud all of you here today, whether you served in the 

Army, the Marines or not, we are grateful for your service and 

sharing your information with us, and I look forward to working 

with you going forward. Thank you so much. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you so much, Senator Carper. 

Just before I bring this to a close, Brian, a quick question or two. 

My recollection is the introduction of wolves into Yellowstone, 

Bruce Babbitt, Bill Clinton was President. The number was like 30, 

and the idea was to get to 100 as a stable number, and we have 

been there for over 15 years. 

My recollection in this Committee, Dan Ashe, who was President 

Obama’s head of Fish and Wildlife, said Wyoming has done everything that we have asked them to do; they are a stable population. 

And I have read somewhere that the number of wolves that have 

expanded beyond Yellowstone, where they were ‘‘supposed to stay,’’ 

is now 1,700 in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming. You are seeing them in 

Oregon, California. Are those roughly the accurate numbers, so the 

wolves have kind of expanded significantly? 

Mr. NESVIK. Mr. Chairman, your numbers are approximate, and 

they are correct. Idaho hasn’t actually done a population estimate 

in a couple years, but Montana and Wyoming have, and you are 

exactly right. The wolf population in the northern Rocky Mountains have done quite well and have expanded. 

Senator BARRASSO. And then take a look at this map. We talk 

about the traditional area of habitat for the gray wolf, which is in 

gray. Wasn’t it just about most of the United States at one point 

or another was the traditional habitat for the gray wolf, including 

all of New York and the northern half of New Jersey? Is this an 

accurate assessment of what had happened over the time? 

Mr. NESVIK. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is my understanding of 

kind of the historical occupied habitat of wolves back in pre-settlement. 

Senator BARRASSO. So, John, in your written testimony, when 

you say that wolves inhabit about 15 percent of the historic range, 

I think this is truly the case, you can see from the chart of all of 

the places where they were, are you advocating that this return is 

something that could be feasible? 

Mr. VUCETICH. No, I am not advocating for that, nor has anyone 

else who has worked on this issue of significant portion of range. 

I think what is disturbing to many folks who are focused on this 

issue is that 15 percent wouldn’t seem, prima facie, to satisfy that 

notion of, and I am using words a little less technically, kind of 

widely distributed, or significant portion of range, as the law 

states. They are concerned that that number doesn’t meet the 

mark. 

There is also pretty plain awareness that wolves can do well in 

other places. Not all of those places, but definitely other places. 

Places that folks have talked about are the Northeast, Pacific 

Northwest, the southern Rockies, which is kind of Colorado and 

northern New Mexico. 

And I don’t know that here is the place to go into the very fine 

details about that, but just that there are those places that people 

have made the case that wolves could do well there. 

232 

Senator BARRASSO. And I think we have tried to reflect that with 

the green, which, at the bottom, if you could maybe hold this up 

a little bit, where we say potential habitat. 

Mr. VUCETICH. Yes. 

Senator BARRASSO. In green. And then currently occupied habitat 

in the red, and then the gray all of the location. 

So anything final? 

Any final comment, Brian, you would like to make on all of this? 

Mr. NESVIK. So, Mr. Chairman, I guess the one thing I would 

conclude with is that our experience in Wyoming has been that 

gray wolves is a species that does not coexist well with human activity. They require large expanses of undisturbed habitat in order 

to do well. We have that in Wyoming, and that is where we have 

focused our wolf management plan, is in those areas where it is 

both biologically and socially suitable habitat for wolves. 

In most of the rest of the State wolves find themselves in conflict 

very quickly when they expand to those other areas. The areas you 

highlight on that map are places where there are some larger open 

expanses, but wolves travel. We have seen wolves travel 25, 30 

miles in a day, and wolves eat meat. That is a scientific fact. So 

it is very difficult to find those large expanses of range where 

wolves can exist where they don’t conflict with livestock operations. 

But I do believe this, and I will conclude with this, Mr. Chairman, that we have demonstrated and have fully committed to do 

both things, mitigate livestock conflicts and also manage for a viable, healthy, and fully recovered wolf population in the State of 

Wyoming in the future. 

[The referenced information follows:] 


26784.199

Gray Wolf Habitat in the Contiguous United States 

Currently Occupied Habitat 

Potential Habitat 

Historic Range 
234 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, I want to thank all of you today. Members may submit follow up written questions which may happen for 

the record. The hearing record will be open for 2 weeks. 

I want to thank all the witnesses for your time and testimony 

today. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m. the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

235 


26784.200

11 iiTII CO;\UHJ<;RS 

] !-\T 1'\!';s,.;JO>: S.I514 

To nllH'Ild t·,•r1aiu i\f·h~ to l't•nu1hori%i' thmw .. \t't-..'-i and to in<•J'PHXP prottt(•tionx 

l'or 1\·ildlif(•, and for otht•r pm·poxl'X. 

IX TTIE RJ~:'\ATE CW Tim UNITED f:l'I'ATES 

.Jt•:-;g :l!l, 2017 

!I 

,Jr. I\.\1{1(.\S:<O (l'or ltimxdr, :\Jr. l'.ll!lll:", ~11·. Boo%,1.1:", ~lx. KWill'l'ILIH, t-\~.:Sohr'!So n, ~Irs. ( '.ll'I'I'O, mHl ~lx. RIJ,D\\'IX) introdm•p(] tht• following- hill; whit•h wax l-'\Q. &\-z.i 1 

l'l'ad Ill' it•(• and rPf'<'l'J'Pd to t ht• ( 'ommitkt• on Em·il'nllllll'llt and Pnhli<· lr ~ 

m~ M~n~ 

A BILL 

To nmcJHl eertuin Aet"" 1o rcauthol'ize those Acts and to 

im:n•m;e prot<~etions for '"ik1Jife, ami for other purpJRCli. 

Be it enacted by the Elen.a.te and House of Representa.-

2 liJ•es qt'fhe United States oj'Ame1·ica in Cong1·e.gs assem.bl.erl, 

3 BECTION 1. lilHOHT TITLE. 

4 This 1\et nw~· be dtl•d ns the "lhmtiug- llc•ritH~otP and 

5 I~n,·imnnwHtal Lq;·m·y Pn!»<.:rYation for \Vildlife A(•f' or 

6 tllP "[JlG!JJ> fm Wildlife Ad;'. 

7 !41;;C. Y. TAtWtJ;T l'ltAiJ'flCg ANlJ MAlUU!lMAN!Hlll'. 
236 


26784.201

S.L.C. 

2 

ranges, including ranges on Federal land managed by the 

2 Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. 

3 (b) DEFINITION OP PUBLIC T.AEGE1' RANGE.-ln 

4 this section, the term "public target range" means a spe5 cific location that6 (1) is identified by a governmental agency for 

7 recreational shooting; 

8 (2) is open to the public; 

9 ( 3) may be supervised; and 

10 ( 4) may accommodate archery or rifle, pistol, or 

11 shotgun shooting. 

12 (c) A\iENDMENTS TO PIT1'MAN-RoBERTSON \¥ILDl3 LIFE RES'l'OH.ATION AC'l'.-

14 ( 1) DEFINITIO?\S.-Section 2 of the Pittman15 Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 

16 669a) is amendecl17 (A) by redesignating paragraphs (2) 

18 through (8) as paragTaphs (3) through (9), re19 spectively; and 

20 (B) by inserting after paragraph ( 1) the 

21 following: 

22 "(2) the ter·m 'public target range' means a 

23 specific location that24 "(A) is identified by a governmental agen25 cy for recreational shooting; 
237 


26784.202

:\ICC175aa S.L.C. 

3 

"(B) is open to the public; 

2 " (C) may be supervised; and 

3 "(D) may accommodate archery or rifle, 

4 pistol, or shotgun shooting·;". 

5 (2) EXPENDI'I'URES FOR l'I{A.."\AGEl\fEN'l' OF 

6 WIT.JDLIFE AREAS A.l'JD RESOURCES.-Section 8(b) of 

7 the Pittman-Robertson 'Wildlife Restoration Act (16 

8 U.S.C. 669g(b)) is amended9 (A) by striking "(b) Each State" and m1 0 serting the following: 

11 "(b) EA."'PENDITURES F'OR :CvLL\JAGE.iHE}."T OF vVII.JD12 LIFE liliEAS AND RESOURCES.-

l3 "(1) IN GE::--JERAL.-Except as provided in para14 graph (2), each State"; 

15 (B) in paragraph (1) (as so designated), in 

16 the first sentence, by striking "construction, op17 eration," and inserting "operation"; 

18 (C) in the second sentence, by striking 

19 "The non-Federal share" and inserting the fol20 lowing: 

21 "(3) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.-The non-Federal 

22 share"; 

23 (D) in the third sentence, by striking "The 

24 

25 

Secretary" and inserting the following: 

"(4) REGULA'l'IONS.-The Sect·etary"; and 
238 


26784.203

:I'ICC175:33 S.L.C. 

4 

1 (E) by inserting after paragraph (1) (as 

2 designated by subparagraph (A)) the following: 

3 "(2) ExcEPTION.-Notwithstanding the limita4 tion described in paragraph (1), a State may pay up 

5 to 90 percent of the cost of acquiring land for, ex6 paneling, or constructing a public target range.". 

7 (3) FIREARi\1 .Al'\;D BOW HUNTER EDtTCA'l'ION 

8 A.i\"D S<li<'E'rY PROGRAM GRA..Yl'S.-Section 10 of' the 

9 Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (16 

10 U.S.C. 669h-1) is amended11 (A) in subsection (a), by adding at the end 

12 the following: 

13 "(3) .ALLOCA'l'ION OF 1\DDI'l'lONAL .fuVIOUI\"'l'S.-

14 Of the amount apportioned to a State for any fiscal 

15 year under section 4(b), the State may elect to allo16 cate not more than 10 percent, to be combined with 

17 the amount apportioned to the State under para18 graph (1) for that fiscal year, for acquiring land for, 

19 expanding, or constructing a public target range."; 

20 (B) by striking subsection (b) and insert21 ing the following: 

22 "(b) COST SIIARING.-

23 "(1) I:l\' GENERAIJ.-Except as provided in para24 graph (2), the Federal share of the cost of any activ25 ity carried out using a grant under this section shall 
239 


26784.204

;\ICC17533 s.r,.c. 

5 

I not exceed 7 5 percent of the total cost of the activ2 ity. 

3 "(2) PUBLIC 'fARGET B.A1'\'GE CONSTRUCTION OR 

4 E).""PANSIOl\t.-The Federal share of the cost of ac5 quiring land for, expanding, or constructing a public 

6 target range in a State on Federal ot· non-Federal 

7 land pursuant to this section or section 8(b) shall 

8 not exceed 90 percent of the cost of the activity."; 

9 and 

10 (C) in subsection (c)(l)-

11 {i) by striking "Amounts made" and 

12 inserting the following: 

13 "(A) IN GENERAIJ.-Except as provided in 

14 subparagraph (B), amounts made"; and 

15 (ii) by adding at the end the fol16 lowing: 

17 1

'(B) EXCEPTWN.-Amounts provided for 

18 acquiring land for, constructing, or expanding a 

19 public target range shall remain available for 

20 e..'\.'Penditure and oblig-ation during the 5-fiscal21 year period beginning on October 1 of the first 

22 fiscal year for which the amounts are made 

23 available.". 

24 (d) Sl~NSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING COOPERA· 

25 TIOX .-It is the sense of Congress that, consistent with 
240 


26784.205

S.hC. 

6 

1 applicable laws (including reg1.1lations), the Chief of the 

2 Forest Service and the Director of the Bureau of Land 

3 Management should cooperate with State and local au4 t.horities and other entities to carry out waste removal and 

5 other activities on any Federal land used as a public target 

6 range to encourage continued use of that land for target 

7 pr·actice or marksmanship training. 

8 SEC. 3. BAITING OF MIGRATORY GAME BIRDS. 

9 Section 3 of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 

10 U.S.C. 704) is amended by striking subsection (h) and inll sert.ing the followi.ng: 

12 "(b) PROIIIBITIOi\' OF BAI'fL'\G.-

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

I9 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

"(1) DEFINITIONS.-In this subsection: 

"(A) BAITED AREA.-

"(i) IN GENERAI ... -The term 'baited 

area' means-

" (I) any area on which salt, 

grain, or other feed has been placed, 

exposed, deposited, distributed, or 

scattered, if the salt, grain, or feed 

could lure or attract migratory game 

birds; and 

"(II) m the case of waterfowl, 

cranes (family Gruidae), and coots 

(family Rallidae), a standing, 
241 


26784.206

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

S.L.C. 

7 

1.mharvested crop that has been manipulated through activities such as 

mowing·, discing, or rolling, unless the 

activities are normal agricultural practices. 

"(ii) EXCLGSIOXS.-An area shall not 

be considered to be a 'baited area' if the 

area-

"(I) has been treated ·with a normal agricultural practice; 

"(II) has standing crops that 

have not been manipulated; or 

"(III) has standing crops that 

have been or are flooded. 

"(B) BAI'l'ING.-The term 'baiting' means 

the direct or indirect placing, exposing, depositing, distributing, or scattering of salt, grain, 

or other feed that could lure or attract migratory game birds to, on, or over any areas on 

which a hunter is attempting to take migratory 

game birds. 

"(C) MIGRA'l'ORY Gfu\IE BIRD.-The term 

'migratory game bird' means migratory birrl 

species-
242 


26784.207

;>.[CC1753~ 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

s.r •. c. 

8 

"(i) that are within the taxonomic 

families of Anaticlae, Columbidae, Gruidae, 

Rallidae, and Scolopacidae; and 

"(ii) for which open seasons are prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. 

"(D) NORMAL AGRICUIJTURAI.~ PRACTICE.-

"(i) IN GEXERAL.-The term 'normal 

agricultural practice' means any practice in 

1 annual gro-wing season that-

"(I) is can·ied out in order to 

produce a marketable crop, including 

planting, har-vest, post-harvest, or soil 

conservation practices; and 

"(II) is recommended for the 

successful harvest of a given crop by 

the applicable State office of the Cooperative Eh.i:ension System of the Department of Agriculture, in consultation with, and if requested, the concm·rence of, the head of the applicable 

State department of fish and wildlife. 

"(ii) IN"CLUSIONS.-

"(I) Ix GEl\lERAJJ.-Subject to 

subclause (II), the term 'normal ~O'fi-
243 


26784.208

~ICC175:~a 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

S.L.C. 

9 

cultural practice' includes the destruction of a crop in accordance with 

practices required by the Federal 

Crop Insurance Corporation for agTicultural producers to obtain crop insurance under the Federal Crop Insm·ance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

on land on which a. crop during the 

current or immediately preceding crop 

year was not harvestable due to a natural disaster (including any hurricane, 

storm, tot·nado, flood, high water, 

wind-driven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, 

landslide, mudslide, drought, fire, 

snowstorm, or other catastrophe that 

is declared a major disaster by the 

President in accordance with section 

401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170)). 

"(II) LmrrA'fiONS.-The term 

'normal agricultural practice' only includes a. crop described in subclause 

(I) that has been destroyed or manip-
244 


26784.209

S.L.C. 

10 

1 ulated through activities that include 

2 (but are not limited to) mov;ring, 

3 cliscing, or rolling if the Federal Crop 

4 Insurance Corporation certifies that 

5 flooding was not an acceptable method 

6 of destruction to obtain crop insur7 ance under the Federal Crop Insur8 ance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). 

9 "(E) WA'l'ERFOWL.-The tenn 'waterfowl' 

10 means native species of the family Anatidae. 

11 "(2) PRonmrrroN.-It shall be unlawful for 

12 any person13 <~(A) to take any migratory game bird by 

14 baiting or on or over any baited area, if the 

15 person knows or reasonably should know that 

16 the area is a baited area; or 

17 "(B) to place or direct the placement of 

18 bait on or ac~jacent to an area for the purpose 

19 of causing, inducing, or a.llo·wing any person to 

20 take or attempt to take any migTatory game 

21 bird by baiting or on or over the baited area. 

22 "(3) REG'C'LATIONS.-The Secretary of the In23 terior may promulgate regulations to implement this 

24 subsection. 
245 


26784.210

MCC1753:l S.L.C. 

11 

1 "(4) REPOR'l'S.-Annually, the Secretary of Ag2 ricnltnre shall submit to the Secretary of the Inte3 rior a report that describes any changes to normal 

4 agr·icnltnral practices across the ra.nge of' crops 

5 grown by agricultural producers in each region of 

6 the United States in which the recommendations are 

7 pt'O\~cled to agricultural producers.". 

8 SEC. 4. NORTH AMERICAN WETLANDS CONSERVATION ACT. 

9 (a) REAl~ PROPER'I'Y.-Section 6(a)(3) of the North 

10 American Wetlands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 

11 4405(a)(3)) is amendedt2 (1) by striking ~<(3) in lieu of" and inserting 

13 the following: 

14 l<(3) PROVISION OF FUXDS OR COl'tVEYA .. '\"CE OF 

15 REAL PROPEH.'l'Y INTEREST.-

16 "(A) IN GE:\TERAL.-ln lieu of"; 

17 (2) in the second sentence, by striking "The 

18 Sectetary shall" and inserting the following: 

19 "(B) DE'l'ER',\liNA'l'IO:-.: .-The Secretary 

20 shall"; and 

21 (3) by striking· the third sentence and inserting 

22 the follo·wing: 

23 "(C) RE~\JJ PROPERTY.-Any real pl'operts 

24 interest conveyed under this para{,rraph shall he 
246 


26784.211

MCC17:1:l3 S.L.C. 

12 

1 

2 

3 

subject to terms and conditions that ensure 

that-

"(i) the real property interest l\r:ill be 

4 administered for the long-term conserva5 tion and management of the wetland eco6 system and the fish and "r:ildlife dependent 

7 on that ecosystem; 

8 ~<(ii) the grantor of a real property in9 terest has been prmr:ided with information 

10 relating to all available conservation op11 tions, including conservation options that 

12 involve the conveyance of a real property 

13 interest for a limited period of time; and 

14 "(iii) the provision of the infor·mation 

15 described in clause (ii) has been docu16 mented.". 

17 (b) .A.U'l'IIORIZA'l'I0:\1 OF APPROPRL\'l'IONS.-Section 

18 7 (c) of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act 

19 (16 U.S.C. 4406(c)) is amended20 (1) in paragraph (4), by striking· "and"; 

21 (2) in pm·agraph (5), b3r striking the period at 

22 the end and inserting "; and"; and 

23 (3) by adding at the end the follmlring: 

24 "(6) $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2018 

25 through 2 02 2. ". 
247 


26784.212

~ICC175:3a 

1:3 

1 SEC. 5. NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION ES2 TABLISHMENT ACT. 

3 (a) BOARD OF DIREC'l'ORS OF FOt;~DA'ri0~.-

4 (1) IN GE?\ERAL.-Section 3 of the National 

5 Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act (16 

6 U.S.C. 3702) is amended7 (.A) in subsection (b)-

8 (i) by striking paragmph (2) and in9 serting the following: 

10 "(2) I?\ GENERAL.-After consulting with the 

II Secretary of Commerce and considering the rec12 onunenda.tions snbmitted by the Board, the Sec13 retary of the Interior shall appoint 28 Directors 

14 who, to the ma.-.Qmum e.."\."tent practicable, shallIS "(A) be knm.vledgeable and experienced m 

16 matters relating to the conservation of fish, 

17 wildlife, or other natural resources; and 

18 "(B) represent a balance of expertise in 

19 ocean, coastal, freshwater, and terrestrial re20 source conservation."; and 

21 (ii) by striking pamgraph (3) and in22 serting the following: 

23 "(3) TERi.!S.-Each Director (other than a Di24 rector described in paragraph (1)) shall be appointed 

25 for a term of 6 years."; and 

26 (B) in subsection (g)(2)-
248 


26784.213

S.L.C. 

14 

(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking2 "(A) Officers and employees may not be 

3 appointed until the Foundation has suffi4 cient funds to pay them for their service. 

5 Officers" and inserting the following: 

6 "(A) IN GENERAL.-Officers"; and 

7 (ii) by striking subparagraph (B) and 

8 inserting the following: 

9 "(B) EXECti'l'IVE DIRECTOR.-The Foun1 0 dation shall have an Executive Director who 

11 shall be12 "(i) appointed by, and serve at the di13 rection of, the Board as the chief executive 

14 offieer of the Foundation; and 

15 "(ii) knowledgeable and experienced in 

16 matters relating to fish and wildlife con17 servation.". 

18 (2) Col'<'F'Orumm .!L\fENmm::\!T.-Section 

19 4(a)(l)(B) of the North American Wetlands Con20 servation Act (16 U.S.C. 4403(a)(l)(B)) is amended 

21 by striking· "Secretary of the Board" and inserting 

22 ''Executive Director of the Board". 

23 (b) RIGII'l'S .,cL'\D 0BLIGA'1'IONS OF FOUNDA'l'ION.-

24 Section 4 of the National Fish and vVildlife Foundation 

25 Establishment Act (16 U.S.C. 3703) is amended-
249 


26784.214

S.L.C. 

15 

1 (1) in subsection (c)-

2 (A) by striking "(c) POWERS.-To carry 

3 out its purposes under" and inserting the fo]-

4 lowing·: 

5 "(c) POWERS.-

6 " ( 1) Ix GEKERAIJ.-To carTy out the purposes 

7 described in"; 

8 (B) by redesignating paragraphs (1) 

9 through (11) as subparagraphs (A) through 

10 (K), respectively, and indenting appropriately; 

11 (C) in subparagraph (D) (as redesignated 

12 by subparag:raph (B)), by striking "that are in13 sured by an agency or instnunentality of the 

14 United States" and inserting "at 1 or more filS nancial institutions that are members of the 

16 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the 

17 Securities Investment Protection Corporation"; 

18 (D) in subparagraph (E) (as redesignated 

19 by subparagraph (B)), by striking "paragraph 

20 (3) or (4)" and inserting "subparagraph (C) or 

21 (D)"; 

22 (E) in subparagraph (J) (as redesignated 

23 by subparagnph (B)), by striking "and" at the 

24 end; 
250 


26784.215

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

S.L.C. 

16 

(F) by striking· subparagraph (K) (as redesignated by subparetocrraph (B)) and inserting 

the following: 

"(K} to receive and administer restitution 

and community service payments, amounts for 

mitigation of impacts to natural resources, and 

other amounts arising from legal, regulatory, or 

administrative proceedings, subject to the condition that the amounts are received or administered for purposes that further the conservation and manag·ement of fish, wildlife, plants, 

and other natural resources; and 

"(L) to do acts necessary to carry out the 

purposes of the Foundation. n; and 

(G) by striking the undesignated matter at 

the end and inserting the following: 

"(2} TREATMENT OF REAL PROPERTY.-

" (A) IN GENERt\I.,.-For purposes of this 

Act, an interest in real property shall be treated 

as including easements or other rights for preservation, conservation, protection, or enhancement by and for the public of natural, scenic, 

historic, scientific, educational, inspirational, or 

recreational resources. 
251 


26784.216

:.\!CC175:J3 S.hC. 

17 

"(B) ENCUMBERED REAL PROPER'l'Y.-A 

2 gift, devise, or bequest may be accepted by the 

3 Foundation even though the gift, devise, or be4 quest is encumbered, restricted, or subject to 

5 beneficial interests of private persons if any 

6 current or future interest in the gift, devise, or 

7 bequest is for the benefit of the Foundation. 

8 "(3) SAVIN'GS CLAUSE.-The acceptance and 

9 administration of amounts by the Foundation under 

10 paragraph (l)(K) does not alter, supersede, or limit 

11 any regulatory or statutor-y requil·ement associated 

12 with those amounts."; 

13 (2) by striking subsections (f) and (g); and 

14 (3) by redesignating subsections (h) and (i) as 

15 subsections (f) and (g), respectively. 

16 (c) AC''l'IIORIZATION OF APPROPRIATI00/S.-Section 

17 10 of the N a tiona! Fish and Wildlife Foundation Estab18 lislunent Act (16 U.S.C. 3709) is amended19 (1) in subsection (a), by striking pcu'agraph (1) 

20 ancl inserting the following: 

21 "(1) Ix GENERAL.-There are authorized to be 

22 appropriated to carry out this Act f'or each of fiscal 

23 years 2018 through 2022-

24 "(A) $15,000,000 to the Secretary of the 

25 Interior; 
252 


26784.217

~!CC175:J:~ 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

S.L.C. 

18 

"(B) $5,000,000 to the Secretary of Agriculture; and 

"(C) $5,000,000 to the Secretary of Commerce."; 

(2) in subsection (b)-

(A) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the follo·wing: 

"(1) AMOUNTS FRD:\1 FEDERAL AGE~CIES.-

"(A) IN GENERAL.-In addition to the 

amounts authorized to be appropriated under 

subsection (a), Federal departments, agencies, 

or instrumentalities are authorized to provide 

funds to the Foundation through Federal financial assistance gl'ants and cooperative agreements, subject to the condition that the 

amounts are used for purposes that fnrther the 

conservation and management of fish, wildlife, 

plants, and other natural resources in accordance with this Act. 

''(B) Anv Al\"CEs.-Federal departments, 

ag·encies, or instrumentalities may advance 

amounts described in subparagraph (A) to the 

Foundation in a lump sum without regard to 

when the expenses for which the amounts are 

used are incurred. 
253 


26784.218

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

S.L.C. 

19 

"(C) l.VlA..'\AGEMENT FEES.-The Foundation may assess and collect fees for the management of amounts received under this paragTaph."; 

(B) in paragraph (2)-

(i) in the paragraph heading, by striking ''FUi\DS" and inserting 11.Al\IOUl'\TS"; 

(ii) by striking "shall be used" and inseeting "may be used"; and 

(iii) by striking ''and State and local 

government agencies" and inserting ", 

State and local government agencies, and 

other entities"; and 

(C) by adding at the end the following: 

"(3) Am,n?-.1:STRATIO~ OF A~IOUNTS.-

"(A) I~ GE~ER..AL.-In entering into contracts, agreements, or other partnerships pursuant to this Act, a Federal department, agency, 

or instrumentality shall have discretion to waive 

any competitive process applicable to the department, agency, or instrumentality for entering· into contracts, agreements, or partnerships 

\\~th the Foundation if the purpose of the waiver IS-
254 


26784.219

;I!CC175:3:J S.L.C. 

20 

1 "(i) to address an environmental 

2 emergency resulting from a natural or 

3 other disaster; or 

4 "(ii) as determined Jw the head of the 

5 applicable Federal depar·tment, agency, or 

6 instrumentality, to reduce administrative 

7 eA.11enses and expedite the conservation and 

8 management of fish, wildlife, plants, and 

9 other natural resources. 

10 "(B) REPORTS.-The Foundation shall in11 elude in the annual report submitted under sec12 tion 7(b) a description of any use of the author13 ity under subparagraph (A) by a Federal de14 partment, agency, or instrumentality in that fis15 cal year."; and 

16 ( 3) by adding at the end the following: 

17 "(d) USE OF GIFTS, DEVISES, OR BEQUESTS OF 

18 .lYIO~EY OR OTHER PROPERTY.-Any gifts, devises, or be19 quests of amounts or other property, or any other amounts 

20 or other property, transferred to, deposited with, or other21 wise in the possession of the Foundation pursuant to this 

22 Act, may be made available by the Foundation to Federal 

23 departments, agencies, or instrumentalities and may be 

24 accepted and expended (or the disposition of the amounts 

25 or property directed), without further appropriation, by 
255 


26784.220

~ICCI75:l::l S.L.C. 

21 

1 those Federal departments, agencies, or instrumentalities, 

2 subject to the condition that the amounts or property be 

3 used for purposes that further the conservation and man4 agement of fish, ·wildlife, plants, and other natural re5 sources.". 

6 (cl) Lil\H'l'A'l'IOi'\ ON AUTHORI'l'Y.-Section 11 of the 

7 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act 

8 (1(-) U.S.C. :3710) is amended by inserting "exclusive" be9 fore "authority". 

l 0 SEC. 6. REAUTHORIZATION OF NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY 

11 BIRD CONSERVATION ACT. 

12 Section 10 of the Neotropical :Migratory Bird Con13 servation Act (16 U.S.C. 6109) is amended to read as fol14 lows: 

1~ "SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

16 "(a) IN GENERA!J.-There is authorized to be appro17 priated to carry out this Act $6,500,000 for each of fiscal 

18 years 2018 throug112022. 

19 ''(b) UsE Ol" F'UNDS.-Of the amounts made a:vail20 Rhle under subsection (a) for each fiscal year, not less than 

21 75 percent shall be e}q)ended for projects carried out at 

22 a location outside of' the United States.". 
256 


26784.221

S.L.C. 

22 

SEC. 7. REISSUANCE OF FINAL RULE REGARDING GRAY 

2 WOLVES IN WESTERN GREAT LAKES. 

3 Before the end of the 60-clay period beginning on the 

4 elate of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior 

5 shall reissue the final rule published on December 28, 

6 2011 (76 Feel. Reg. 81666), without regard to any other 

7 pro-vision of statute or regulation that applies to issuance 

8 of such rule. Such reissuance shall not be subject to judi9 cial revie·w. 

10 SEC. 8. REISSUANCE OF FINAL RULE REGARDING GRAY 

11 WOLVES IN WYOMING. 

12 The final rule published on September 10, 2012 (77 

13 Fed. Reg. 55530) that was reinstated on March 3, 2017, 

14 by the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Dis15 trict of Columbia (No. 14-5300) and further republished 

16 on May 1, 2017 (82 Fed. Reg. 20284-85) that reinstates 

17 the removal of Federal protections for the gray \volf in 

18 Wyoming under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

19 amended, shall not be subject to judicial review. 

20 SEC. 9. MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF SPORT FISHING 

21 EQUIPMENT UNDER TOXIC SUBSTANCES 

22 CONTROL ACT. 

23 Section 3(2)(B) of the Toxic Substances Control Act 

24 (15 U.S.C. 2602(2)(B)) is amended25 (1) in clause (v), by striking "and" at the end; 
257 


26784.222

;\[CC1753:l S.L.C. 

23 

(2) in clause (vi) by striking· the period at the 

2 end and inserting", and"; and 

3 (3) by inserting after clause (vi) the following: 

4 "(vii) any sport fishing equipment (as such 

5 term is defined in section 4162(a) of the Internal 

6 Revenue Code of 1986) the sale of which is sul~ject 

7 to the tax imposed by section 4161(a) of such Code 

8 (determined without regard to any exemptions from 

9 such tax provided by section 41H2 or 4221 or any 

10 other provision of such Code), and sport fishing· 

11 equipment components.". 

12 SEC. 10. REAUTHORIZATION OF CHESAPEAKE BAY PRO· 

13 GRAM. 

14 Section 117 of the Federal Water Pollution Control 

15 Act (3:3 U.S.C. 1267) is amended by striking subsection 

16 (j) and inserting· the following: 

17 "(j) AUTIIORIZA'l'ION OF APPROPRIA'l'IONS.-There 

18 is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 

19 $90,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2018 through 2022.". 

20 SEC. 11. REAUTHORIZATION OF CHESAPEAKE BAY INITIA21 TIVE ACT OF 1998. 

22 Section 502(c) of the Chesapeake Bay Initiative Act 

23 of 1998 (Public La>v 105-312; 112 Stat. 2963; 129 Stat. 

24 2579) is amended by striking· "2017" and inserting 

25 "2023". 
258 


26784.223

~ICC175:33 S.I •. C. 

24 

SEC. 12. NATIONAL FISH HABITAT CONSERVATION 

2 TlffiOUGH PARTNERSHIPS. 

3 (a) PURPOSE.-The purpose of this section is to en4 courage partnerships among public agencies and other inS terested parties to promote fish conservation6 ( 1) to achieve measurable habitat conservation 

7 results through strategic actions of Fish Habitat 

8 Partnerships that lead to better fish habitat concli9 tions and increased fishing opportunities by10 (A) improving ecological conclitions; 

11 (B) restoring natural processes; or 

12 (C) preventing the decline of intact and 

13 healthy systems; 

14 (2) to establish a consensus set of national con15 servation strategies as a framework to guide future 

16 actions and investment by Fish Habitat Partner17 ships; 

18 (3) to broaden the community of support for 

I 9 fish habitat conservation by20 (A) increasing fishing opportunities; 

21 (B) fostering the participation of local 

22 communities, especially young people in local 

23 communities, in conservation activities; and 

24 (C) raising public awareness of the role 

25 healthy fish habitat play in the quality of life 

26 and economic well-being of local communities; 
259 


26784.224

S.L.C. 

25 

( 4) to fill gaps in the N a tiona! Fish Habitat As2 sessment and the associated database of the Na3 tiona! Fish Habitat Assessment4 (A) to empower strategic conservation ac5 tions supported by broadly available scientific 

6 information; and 

7 (B) to integrate socioeconomic data in the 

8 analysis to improve the lives of humans in a 

9 manner consistent with fish habitat conserva10 tion goals; and 

II ( 5) to communicate to the public and conserva12 tion partners13 (A) the conservation outcomes produced 

14 collectively by Fish Habitat Partnerships; and 

15 (B) new opportunities and voluntary ap16 proaches for conserving fish habitat. 

I7 (b) DEFIJ:\'T!'IOXS.-In this section: 

18 (1) A.PPROPRLATE 00:\"GRESSIO?\.AL COlVL\UT19 TEES.-The term "appropriate congressional com20 mittees" means21 (A) the Committee on Commerce, Science, 

22 and Transportation and the Committee on En23 ''ironment and Public vVorks of the Senate; and 

24 {B) the Committee on Natural Resources 

25 of the House of Representatives. 
260 


26784.225

i\£CC1758:3 SJ,.C. 

26 

1 (2) BOARD.-The term "Board" means the Na~ 

2 tional Fish Habitat Board established by subsection 

3 (c)(l)(A). 

4 (3) DIREC'l'OR.-The term "Director" means 

5 the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife 

6 Service. 

7 ( 4) EPA ASSIS'l'A.~'\T AD;"~HNISTRATOR.-The 

8 term "EPA .Assistant Administrator" means the As9 sistant. Administrator for Water of the Environ1 0 mental Protection Ag-ency. 

11 (5) 1;'-JDIA ... "\' TRIBE.-The term "Indian tribe" 

12 has the meaning given the term in section 4 of the 

13 Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance 

14 Act (25 U.S.C. 5304). 

15 (G) NOAA ASSIS'l'A .. '\T ADl\IIi\'ISTRA'l'OR.-The 

16 term "NOAA Assistant Administrator" means the 

17 Assistant .Administrator for Fisheries of the N a18 tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

19 (7) PAR'l';..JERSIIIP.-The term "Partnership" 

20 means a self-g·overnecl entity designated by Congress 

21 as a Fish Habitat Partnership under subsection 

22 (d)(6) after a recommendation by the Board under 

23 subsection (d)(l). 
261 


26784.226

iiiCC1758:3 S.L.C. 

27 

(8) RE.LU; PROPERTY I:i\TTERES1'.-The term 

2 "real property interest" means an ownership interest 

3 in4 (A) land; or 

5 (B) water (inclucHng water rights). 

6 (9) SECRETARY.-The term "Secretary" means 

7 the Secretary of the Interior. 

8 (10) STA'l'E.-The term "State" means each of 

9 the several States. 

10 (11) STATE AGE:\!CY.-The term "State agen11 cy" means12 

13 and 

(A) the fish and wildlife agency of a State; 

14 (B) any department or eli-vision of' a deIS partment or agency of a State that manages in 

16 the public trust the inland or marine fishery re17 sources or sustains the habitat for those fisher~' 

18 resources of the State putsuant to State law or 

19 the constitution of the State. 

20 (c) NATIONAL FISH I-lABITAT BOARD.-

21 (1) EsTABIJrsr-I:\:IEN'r.-

22 (A) FISH IL\BIT.A.T BOARD.-There is es23 tablished a board, to be knuwn as the "National 

24 Fish Habitat Board", whose duties are-
262 


26784.227

i\fCC175:n 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

lO 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

S.L.C. 

28 

(i) to promote, oversee, and coordinate 

the implementation of this section; 

(ii) to establish national goals and priorities for fish habitat conservation; 

(iii) to reconunend to Congress entities for designation as Partnerships; and 

(iv) to re,~ew and make recommendations regarding fish habitat conservation 

projects. 

(B) MEMBER...~IIIP.-The Board shall be 

composed of 25 members, of whom-

(i) 1 shall be a representative of the 

Depm·tment of the Interior; 

(ii) 1 shall be a representative of the 

United States Geological Survey; 

(iii) 1 shall be a representative of the 

Department of Commerce; 

(iv) 1 shalt be a representative of the 

Department of Agriculture; 

(v) 1 shall be a representative of the 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; 

(vi) 4 shall be representatives of State 

agencies, 1 of whom shall be nominated by 

a regional association of fish and \Bldlife 

agencres from each of the Northeast, 
263 


26784.228

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

I 1 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

S.L.C. 

29 

Southeast, Midwest, and \¥estern regions 

of the United States; 

(vii) 1 shall be a representative of either-

(I) Indian tribes m the State of 

Alaska; or 

{II) Indian tribes in States other· 

than the State of Alaska; 

(viii) 1 shall be a representative of either-

(I) the Regional Fishery :Management Councils established under section 302 of the .Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1852); or 

(II) a representative of the Marine Fisheries Commissions, ·which is 

composed of-

(aa) the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission; 

(bb) the Gulf States Marine 

Fisheries Commission; and 

(cc) the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission; 
264 


26784.229

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

lO 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

30 

(ix) 1 shall be a representative of the 

Sportfishing and Boating Partnership 

Council; 

(x) 7 shall be representatives selected 

from each of.-

(I) the recreational sportfishing 

industry; 

(II) the commercial fishing mdustry; 

(III) marine recreational anglers; 

(IV) freshwater recreational ano-lers· "' ' 

(V) habitat conservation organizations; and 

(VI) science-based fishery organizations; 

(xi) 1 shall be a representative of a 

national private landowner organization; 

(xii) 1 shall be a representative of an 

agricultur~l production organization; 

(xiii) 1 shall be a rerJresentative of 

local guvernment interests involved in fish 

habitat restoration; 
265 


26784.230

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

lO 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

S.L.C. 

31 

(xiv) 2 shall be representatives from 

different sectors of corporate industries, 

which may include-

(I) natural resource comnwclity 

interests, such as petroleum or mineral e1.'traction; 

(II) natural resource user industries; and 

(III) industries with an interest 

in fish and fish habitat conservation; 

and 

(1.rv) 1 shall be a leadership private 

sector or la.ndo·wner representative of an 

active partnership. 

(C) CoMPEN"SA'l'ION.-A member of the 

Board shall serve without compensation. 

(D) TRAVEL EXPENSES.-A member of the 

Board may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at 'rates authorized for an employee of an agency under 

subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United 

States Code, while away from the home or regular place of business of the member in the performance of the duties of the Board. 

(2) APPOI:N'i';\IE:\''1' A:.'\'D 'rERl\IS.-
266 


26784.231

~ICCl753:~ 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

32 

(A) IN GEXERAL.-Except as otherwise 

provided in this subsection, a member of the 

Board described in any of clauses (vi) through 

(xiv) of paragraph (l)(B) shall serve for a term 

of 3 years. 

(B) lNI'l'IAL BOARD MEMBERSHIP.-

(i) IN GENERAL.-The initial Board 

will consist of representatives as described 

in clauses (i) through (vi) of paragraph 

(l)(B). 

(ii) REi\IAIXING 1\IEl\IBERS.-Not later 

than 60 clays after the date of enactment 

of this Act, the representatives of the initial Board pursuant to clause (i) shall appoint the remaining members of the Board 

described in clauses (viii) through (xiv) of 

paragraph (l)(B). 

(iii) TRIBAL REPRESEl\'l'A'riVES.-Not 

later than 60 days after the enactment of 

this Act, the Secretary shall provide to the 

Board a recommendation of not fewer than 

3 tribal representatives, from which the 

Board shall appoint 1 representative pursuant to clause (vii) of paragraph (l)(B). 
267 


26784.232

MCC17538 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

S.L.C. 

33 

(C) T~'l'SITfO~AL TER;)IS.-Of the members described in paragraph (l)(B)(x) initially 

appointed to the Board-

(i) 2 shall be appointed for a term of 

1 year; 

(ii) 2 shall be appointed for a term of 

2 years; and 

(iii) 3 shall be nppointed for a term of 

3 years. 

(D) VACA~CIES.-

(i) I~ GENERAL.-A vacancy of a 

member of the Board described in <UW of 

clauses (viii) through (xiv) of pa1·agTaph 

( 1 )(B) shall be filled by an appointment 

made by the remaining members of the 

Board. 

(ii) TRIDAL REPRE8ENTATIVES.-Following a vacancy of a member of the 

Board described in clause (vii) of paragraph (1)(B), the Secretary shall recommend to the Board a list of not fewer 

than 3 tribal representatives, from which 

the remaining members of the Board shall 

appoint a representative to fill the vacancy. 
268 


26784.233

MCCl75:J:~ 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

S.hC. 

34 

(E) CO:.\'TI:.\'UATro~ OF SERVICE.-An incli-

\~dual whose term of service as a member of the 

Board expires may continue to serve on the 

Board until a successor is appointed. 

(F) REMOVAL.-If a member of the Board 

described in any of clauses (viii) through (xiv) 

of paragraph (l)(B) misses 3 consecutive regularly scheduled Board meeting·s, the members of 

the Board may-

(i) vote to remove that member; and 

(ii) appoint another individual in accordance with subparagraph (D). 

( 3) CIIAIRPEHSO:.\'.-

(A) Ix GENERAL.-The representative of 

the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

appointed pursuant to paragraph (l)(B)(v) 

shall serve as Chairperson of the Board. 

{B) TER?.f.-The Chairperson of the Board 

shall serve for a term of 3 years. 

( 4) MEETIXGS.-

(A) IX GEXERAL.-The Board shall 

meet-

(i) at the call of the Chairperson; but 

(ii) not less fi·equently than twice each 

calendar year. 
269 


26784.234

"ICC175:13 S.L.C. 

35 

1 (B) PeBLIC ACCESS.-All meetings of the 

2 Board shall be open to the public. 

3 (5) PROCEDVRES.-

4 (A) Ix GENERAL.-The Board shall estab5 lish procedures to carry out the business of the 

6 Board, inducling7 (i) a requit'ement that a quorum of 

8 the members of the Board be present to 

9 transact business; 

10 (ii) a t·eqnirement that no rec11 ommendations may be adopted by the 

12 Board, except by the vote of 2h of all mem13 hers; 

14 (iii) procedures for establishing na15 tiona! goals and priorities for fish habitat 

16 conservation for the purposes of this sec17 tion; 

18 (iv) pt·ocedures for designating· Part19 nerships under subsection (d); and 

20 (v) procedures for rei~ewing-, evalu21 ating, and making recommendations re22 garding fish habitat conservation projects. 

23 (B) QUORUZIL-A majority of the members 

24 of the Doard shall constitute a quorum. 

25 (d) Frsn fL\.BITAT PARTI\'ERSIIIPS.-
270 


26784.235

MCCI75:3:J S.L.C. 

36 

(1) AUTHORITY TO RECOi\ilVIEND.-The Board 

2 may recommend to Congress the designation of Fish 

3 Hahitat Partnerships in accordance with this sub4 section. 

5 (2) PURPOSES.-The purvoses of a Partnership 

6 shall be7 (A) to work with other regional habitat 

8 conservation programs to promote cooperation 

9 and coordination to enhance fish and fish habi10 tats; 

11 (B) to eng·age local and regional commu12 nities to build support for fish habitat conserva13 tion; 

14 (C) to involve diverse groups of public and 

15 private partners; 

16 (D) to develop collaboratively a strategic 

17 vision and achievable implementation plan that 

18 is scientifically sound; 

I 9 (E) to leverage funding from sources that 

20 support local and regional partnerships; 

21 (F) to use adaptive management prin22 ciples, including evaluation of project success 

23 and functionality; 

24 (G) to develop appropriate local or regional 

25 habitat evaluation and assessment measures 
271 


26784.236

.:.I!CC17ii3:3 S.hC . 

37 

and criteria that are compatible with national 

2 habitat condition measures; and 

3 (H) to implement local and regional pri4 ority prqjects that improve conditions for fish 

5 and fish habitat. 

6 (3) CRITERIA FOR DESIG:\'ATIOX.-An entity 

7 seeking to be designated by Congress as a Pariner8 ship shall9 (A) submit to the Board an application at 

10 such time, in such manner, and containing such 

11 information as the Board may reasonably re12 quire; and 

13 (B) demonstrate to the Board that the en14 tity has15 (i) a focus on promoting· the health of 

16 important fish and fish habitats; 

17 (ii) an ability to coordinate the imple18 mentation of priority prqjects that support 

19 the goals and national priorities set by the 

20 Board that are within the Partnership 

21 boundary; 

22 (iii) a self-governance structure that 

23 supports the implementation of' strategic 

24 priorities for fish habitat; 
272 


26784.237

~ICCl7533 S.L.C. 

38 

1 (iv) the ability to develop local and re2 gional relationships with a broad mnge of 

3 entities to further strategic priorities for 

4 fish and fish habitat; 

5 (v) a strategic plan that details re6 quired investments for fish habitat con7 se1-vation that addresses the strategic fish 

8 habitat priorities of the Partnership and 

9 supports and meets the strategic priorities 

I 0 of the Board; 

11 (vi) the ability to develop and imple12 ment fish habitat conservation projects 

13 that address strategic priorities of the 

14 Partnership and the Board; and 

15 ('~.'ii) the ability to develop fish habitat 

16 conservation priorities based on sound 

17 science and data, the ability to measme 

18 the effectiveness of fish habitat projects of 

19 the Partnership, and a clear plan as to 

20 how Partnership science and data compo21 nents will be integrated with the overall 

22 Board scienee and data effort. 

23 (4) REQUIRE:VIEI\''PS FOR RECO:VE\fE:\DA'l'ION TO 

24 COI\'GRESS.-The Board ma.y recommend to Con25 gress for designation an application for a Partner-
273 


26784.238

S.I,,C, 

39 

ship submitted nuder paragraph (3)(A) if the Board 

2 determines that the applicant3 (A) meets the criteria described in para4 graph (3)(B); 

5 (B) identifies repr·esentatives to provide 

6 support and technical assistance to the Partner-

? ship from a diverse group of public and private 

8 partners, which may include State or local gov9 ernments, nonprofit entities, Indian tribes, and 

I 0 privnte individuals, that are focused on con11 servation of fish habitats to achieve results 

12 across jmisdictional boundaries on public and 

13 private land; 

14 (C) is organized to promote the health of 

15 important fish species and important fish habi16 tats, including reservoirs, natural lakes, coastal 

17 and marine environments, and estuaries; 

18 (D) identifies strategic fish and fish habi19 tat priorities for the Partnership area in the 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

form of geographical focus areas or key 

stressors or impairments to facilitate strategic 

planning and decisionmaking; 

(E) is able to address issues and priorities 

on a nationally significant scale; 

(F) includes a g·overnance structure that-
274 


26784.239

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

S.L.C. 

40 

(i) reflects the range of all partners; 

and 

(ii) promotes joint strategic plmming 

and decisionmaking by the applicant; 

(G) demonstrates completion of, or significant progress toward the development of, a 

strategic plan to address the decline in fish populations, rather than simply treating symptoms, 

in accordance vv:ith the goals and national priorities established by the Board; and 

(H) promotes collaboration in developing a 

strateg·ic vision and implementation program 

that is scientifically sound and achievable. 

(5) REPOR'r TO CONGRESS.-

(A) IN GENERAh-Not later than February 1 of the first fiscal year beginning· after 

the date of enactment of this Act and each February 1 thereafter, the Board shall develop and 

submit to the appropriate congressional committees an annual report, to be entitled "Report 

to CongTess on Future Fish Habitat Partnerships and Modifications", that--

(i) identifies any entity that-

(1) meets the requirements described in paragraph (4); and 
275 


26784.240

:IICC175:J3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

S.L.C. 

41 

(II) the Board recommends for 

desig·nation as a Partnership; 

(ii) describes any proposed modifications to a Partnership previously designated by Congress under paragraph (6); 

(iii) >vith respect to each entity recommended for designation as a Partner·-

ship, describes, to the ma...'\:imum e:A'tent 

practicable-

(!) the purpose of the recommended Partnership; and 

(II) how the recommended Partnership fulfills the requirements described in paragraph (4). 

(B) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY; l\'O'l'Il<'ICATIO:X.-The Board shall-

(i) make the report publicly available, 

including on the Internet; and 

(ii) provide to the appropriate congressional committees and the State agency of any State included in a recommended 

Partnership area written notification of the 

public availability of the report. 
276 


26784.241

S.L.C. 

42 

(6) DESIGNATIOJ\'" OH. ~IODIF'ICA'riON OI<' PAHT~ 

2 NERSIIIP.-Congress shall have the sole authority to 

3 designate or morlify a Partnership. 

4 (7) EXISTING PAR'l'NERSHIPS.-

5 (A) DESIGNATION REVIEW.-Not later 

6 than 5 years after the date of enactment of this 

7 Act, any fish habitat partnership receiving· Fed~ 

8 era! funds as of the date of enactment of this 

9 Act shall be subject to a designation review by 

10 Congress in which Congress shall have the op11 portnnity to designate the partnership under 

12 paragraph (6). 

13 (B) I:'\ELIGIDILI'l'Y I<'OR I<'EDERAL 

14 FUNDS.-A partnership referred to in subpara15 graph (A) that Congress does not desig'llate as 

16 described in that subparagraph shall be ineli17 gible to receive Federal funds under this sec18 tion. 

19 (e) FISII HABITA'l' CONSERVA'l'ION PROJEC'l'S.-

20 (1) SurnnSSION TO BOARD.-Not later than 

21 March 31 of each calendar year, each Pm·tnership 

22 shall submit to the Board a list of priority fish habi23 tat conservation projects recommended by the Part24 nership for annual funding under this section. 
277 


26784.242

MCC175:1:l HJ,.C. 

43 

(2) REC01.\I:V£I<~::\DATIONS BY BOARD.-Not later 

2 than July 1 of each calendar yeat·, the Board shall 

3 submit to the Secretary a priority list of fish habitat 

4 conservation projects that includes the description, 

5 including estimated costs, of each project that the 

6 Board recommends that the Secretary approve and 

7 fnnd under this section for the following fiscal year. 

8 (3) CRITERL\ I<'OR PRO.JECT SELEC'l'ION.-The 

9 Board shall select each fish habitat conservation 

10 project to be recommended to the Secretary under 

II paragTaph (2) after taking into consideration, at a 

12 minimum, the following information: 

I3 (A) A recommendation of the Partnership 

I4 that is, or will be, participating actively in imI5 plement.ing the fish habitat conservation 

I6 project. 

17 

I8 

19 

20 

2I 

22 

23 

24 

25 

(B) The capabilities and experience of 

project proponents to implement successfully 

the proposed project. 

{C) The eA.'tent to which the fish habitat 

conservation project -

(i) fulfills a local or regional priority 

that is directly linked to the strategic plan 

of the Partnership and is consistent \Vith 

the purpose of this section; 
278 


26784.243

;\fCC175:J:l 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

S.L.C. 

44 

(ii) addresses the national priorities 

established by the Board; 

(iii) is supported by the findings of 

the Habitat Assessment of the Partnership 

or the Board, and aligns or is compatible 

with other conservation plans; 

(iv) identifies appropriate monitoring 

and evaluation measures and criteria that 

are compatible with national measures; 

(v) provides a well-defined budget 

linked to deliverables and outcomes; 

(vi) leverag-es other funds to implement the project; 

(vii) addt·esses the causes and processes behind the decline of fish or fish 

habitats; and 

(viii) includes an outreach or education component that includes the local or 

regional community. 

(D) 'l'he availability of sufficient non-Feder·al funds to match Federal contributions for 

the fish habitat conservation project, as required by paragraph (5); 

(E) The CA'tent to which the local or regional fish habitat conservation project-
279 


26784.244

)fCC\75:33 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

R.L.C. 

45 

(i) will increase fish pO})Ulations in a 

manner that leads to recreational fishing 

opportunities for the public; 

(ii) will be carried out through a cooperative agreement among Federal, State, 

and local governments, Indian tribes, and 

private entities; 

(iii) increases public access to land or 

water for fish and wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities; 

(iv) advances the conservation of fish 

and wildlife species that have been identified by the States as species of greatest 

conservation need; 

(v) where appropriate, advances the 

conservation of fish and fish habitats 

under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Hi U.S.C. 

1801 et seq.) and other relevant Federal 

law and State wildlife action plans; and 

(vi) promotes strong and healthy fish 

habitats so that desired biological communities are able to per·sist and adapt. 

(F) The substantiality of the character and 

design of the fish habitat conservation prqject. 
280 


26784.245

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

IO 

II 

12 

I3 

I4 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

2I 

22 

23 

24 

25 

S.L.C. 

4G 

( 4) LIMrTATIONS.-

(A) REQUIREl\IEI'\TS FOR EVAI"UATIOXNo fish habitat conservation project may be 

recommended by the Board under paragraph 

(2) or provided financial assistance under this 

section unless the fish habitat conservation 

prQject includes an evaluation plan designed 

using applicable Board guidance-

(i) to appropriately assess the biological, ecological, or other results of the habitat protection, restoration, or enhancement 

activities carried out ·using the assistance; 

(ii) to reflect appropriate changes to 

the fish habitat conservation project if the 

assessment. substantiates that the fish 

habitat conservation project objectives are 

not being met; 

(iii) to identifY improvements to existmg fish populations, recreational fishing 

opportunities and the overall economic benefits for the local community of the fish 

habitat conservation project; and 

(iv} to require the submission to the 

Board of a report describing the findings 

of the assessment. 
281 


26784.246

~ICC1753:J 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

lO 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

SL.C. 

47 

(B) ACQUTSITIO~ AG'l'HORI'l'IES.-

(i) I:-: GEl\'ERAL.-.A State, local government, or other non-Federal entity is elig-ible to receive funds for the acquisition of 

real property from willing sellers under 

this section if the acquisition ensures 1 

of:_ 

(I) puhlic access for compatible 

fish and wildlife-dependent recreation; 

or 

(II) a scientifically based, direct 

enhancement to the health of fish and 

fish populations, as determined by the 

Board. 

(ii) STATE AGEl\'CY APPROV"\L.-

(1) I:;-.: GEl\'ERAL.-.All real property interest acquisition projects funded under this section are required to 

be approved by the State ~·ency in 

the State in which the prqject is occurring·. 

(II) PROIIIBITION.-The Board 

may not recommend, and the Secretary may not provide any funding 

for, any real property interest acquisi-
282 


26784.247

JICC175:33 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

S.L.C. 

48 

tion that has not been approved by 

the State ag·ency. 

(iii) ASSESSJ\IE:-\'1' OF O'l'IIER AUTIIORITIES.-The Fish Habitat Partnership shall conduct a project assessment, 

submitted with the funding request and 

approved by the Board, to demonstrate all 

other Federal, State, and local authorities 

for the acquisition of real property have 

been exhausted. 

(iv) RES'l'RIC'l'IOXS.-A real property 

interest may not be acquired pursuant to a 

fish habitat conservation project by a 

State, local government., or other non-Federal entity, unless-

(!) the owner of the real property 

authorizes the State, local government, or other non-Federal entity to 

acquire the real property; and 

(II) the Secretary and the Board 

determine that the State, local government, or other non-Federal entity 

would benefit from undertaking the 

management of the real property 

being acquired because that is in ac-
283 


26784.248

~ICG175:l3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

S.L.C. 

49 

corclance with the goals of a partnership. 

(5) NOX-FEDERAL CON'l'RIBGTIOXS.-

(A) ll\ GJ<}:\'ERAL.-Except as provided m 

subparagraph (B), no fish habitat conservation 

project may be recommended by the Board 

under paragraph (2) or provided financial assistance under this section unless at least 50 

percent of the cost of the fish habitat conservation project ~will be funded with non-Federal 

funds. 

(B) NOX-I•'EDERAL SIIARiiJ.-The non-Federal share of the cost of a fish habitat conservation prQject-

(i) may not be derived from another 

Federal grant program; but 

(ii) may include in-kind contributions 

and cash. 

{C) SPECI.lu; RGLE FOR INDIA:\' 'rRIBES.-

Notwithstanding subparagraph (A) or any other 

provision of law, any funds made available to 

an Indian tribe pursuant to this section may be 

considered to be non-Federal funds for the purpose of subparagraph (A). 

(G) APPROVAh-
284 


26784.249

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

S.I,.C. 

50 

(A) 11\ GEl\'ERAl,.-Not later than 90 days 

after the elate of receipt of the recommended 

priority Jist of fish habitat conservation projects 

nn(ler paragraph (2), subject to the limitations 

of pal'a0

0Taph (4), and based, to the ma.....Umum 

extent practicable, on the criteria described in 

paragraph (3), the Secretary, after consulting 

with the Secretary of Conunerce on marine or 

estuarine projects, shall approve or reject any 

fish habitat conservation project recommended 

by the Board. 

(B) FUNDING.-If the Secretary approves 

a fish habitat conservation project under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall use amounts 

made available to carry out this section to provide funds to carry out the fish habitat conservation prQject. 

(C) NO'l'IFICATION".-If the Secretary r·ejects any fish habitat conseevation project recommended by the Board under paragraph (2), 

not later than 180 days after the date of receipt 

of the recommendation, the Secretary shall provide to the Board, the appropriate Partnership, 

and the appropriate congressional committees a 

written statement of the reasons that the Sec-
285 


26784.250

j!CC175:l3 S.L.C. 

51 

retary rejected the fish habitat conservation 

2 project. 

3 (f) TECIIXIGAL AXD SCIEXTIFIC ASSISTA.t'\'CE.-

4 (1) lx GEXER.i\L.-The Director, the NOAA 

5 Assistant Administrator, the EPA A'isistant Admin6 istrator, and the Director of the United States Geo~ 

7 logical Survey, in coordination with the Forest Serv8 ice and other appropriate Federal departments and 

9 agencies, may provide scientific and technical assist10 ance to the Partnerships, participants in fish habitat 

11 conservation pr~jects, and the Board. 

12 (2) INCLUSIOXS.-Scientific and technical as13 sistance provided pursuant to paragraph (1) may in14 eludeIS (A) providing technical and scientific as16 sistance to States, Indian tribes, regions, local 

17 communities, and nongovernmental organiza18 tions in the development and implementation of 

19 Partnerships; 

20 (B) providing technical and scientific as21 sistance to Partnerships for habitat assessment, 

22 strategic plmming, and prioritization; 

23 (C) supporting· the development and imple24 mentation of fish habitat conservation pr~ject-; 
286 


26784.251

~ICC17i\:J:J S.L.C. 

52 

1 that are identif1ed as high priorities by Partner2 ships and the Board; 

3 (D) supporting and providing· reconunenda4 tions regarding· the development of scienceS based monitoring and assessment approaches 

6 for implementation through Partnerships; 

7 (E) supporting and }WOvicling recommenda8 tions for a national fish habitat assessment; 

9 (F) ensuring the availability of e::...1Jerts to 

I 0 assist in conducting scientifically based evalua11 tion and reporting of the results of fish habitat 

12 conservation projects; and 

13 (G) providing resources to secure state 

14 agency scientif1c and technical assistance to 

15 support Partnerships, participants in fish habi16 tat conservation projects, and the Board. 

17 (g) COORDil\'A'l'IO~ WI'fll STATES Al\1) 1;-.J"DJ:AX 

18 rrRIBES.-The Secret:'lry shall provide a notice to, and co19 operate ·with, the appropriate State agency or tribal ag·en20 cy, as applicable, of each State and Indian tribe within 

21 the boundaries of which an activity is planned to be car22 ried out pursuant to this section, including notification, 

23 by not later than :30 days before the date on which the 

24 activity is implemented. 
287 


26784.252

:.\fCC1753!l S.L.C. 

53 

1 (h) I:\'TEH.AGE~CY OPE:RA'l'ION'.AL PI.u\.N.-Not later 

2 than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and 

3 ever;y 5 years thereafter, the Director, in cooperation ·with 

4 the NOAA Assistant Administrator, the EPA Assistant 

5 Administratoe, the Director of the United States Geologi6 cal Survey, and the heads of other appropriate Federal 

7 departments and agencies (including at a minimum, those 

8 agencies represented on the Board) shall develop an inter9 ag;ency operational plan that describes10 (1) the functional, operational, technical, sci11 entific, a.ncl general staff, administrative, and mate12 rial needs for the implementation of this section; and 

13 (2} any interag·ency agreements between or 

14 among Federal departments and agencies to address 

15 those needs. 

16 (i) ACCOU.:\''l'ABIIJI1'Y Al\'D REPORTING.-

17 (1) REPOR'l'IN'G.-

18 (A) Ix GE:\'ERAL.-Not later than 5 years 

19 after the date of enactment of this Act, and 

20 every 5 years thereafter, the Board shall submit 

21 to the appropriate congressional committees a 

22 report describing the pt·ogress of this section. 

23 (B) Co:\'TENTS.-Each report submitted 

24 under subparagraph (A) shall include-
288 


26784.253

MCC17fi33 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

S.L.C. 

54 

(i) an estimate of the number of 

acres, stream miles, or acre-feet, or other 

suitable measures of fish habitat, that was 

maintained or improved by partnerships of 

Federal, State, or local g'O"vernments, Indian tribes, or other entities in the United 

States during the 5-year period ending on 

the date of submission of the report; 

(ii) a description of the public access 

to fish habitats established or improved 

during· that 5-year period; 

(iii) a description of the improved opportunities for public recreational fishing; 

and 

(iv) an assessment of the status of 

fish habitat conservation projects carried 

out with funds provided under this section 

during that period, disaggregated by year, 

including-

( I) a description of the fish habitat conservation projects reconunended by the Board under subsection (e)(2); 

(II) a description of each fish 

habitat conservation prqject approved 
289 


26784.254

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

S.hC. 

55 

by the Secretary under subsection 

(e)(6), in oeder of priority for funding; 

(III) a justification for-

(aa) the approval of each 

fish habitat conservation project; 

and 

(bb) the order of pr·iority for 

8 funding of each fish habitat con9 servation prQject; 

10 (IV) a justification for any r~iec11 tion of a fish habitat conservation 

12 project recommended by the Board 

13 under subsection (e)(2) that was 

14 based on a factor other than the cri15 teria described in subsection (e)(3); 

16 llid 

17 (V) an accounting of expen,li1 8 tnres by Federal, State, or local gov19 ernments, Indian tribes, or other enti20 ties to ca.rry out fish habitat conserva21 tion prQject..<>. 

22 (2) STA'I'US A,'\'D TREXDS HEPORT.-Not later 

23 than December 31, 2018, and every 5 years there24 after, the Board shall submit to the appropriate con25 gressional committees a report that includes-
290 


26784.255

MCCJ75:n 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

S.hC. 

56 

(A) a, status of all Partnerships designated 

under this section; 

(B) a description of the status of fish habitats in the United States as identified by established Partnerships; and 

(C) enhancements or reductions in public 

access as a result of-

(i) the activities of the Partnerships; 

or· 

I 0 (ii) any other activities carried out 

11 pursuant to this section. 

12 (j) EFFECT OF SECTION.-

13 (1) WATER RIGII'l'S.-Nothing in this section14 (A) establishes any e::q)ress or implied re15 served water right in the United States for any 

I6 purpose; 

17 (B) affects any water right in existence on 

I 8 the date of enactment of this Act; 

I 9 (C) preempts or affects any State water 

20 law or interstate compact governing water; or 

21 (D) affects any Federal or State law in ex22 istence on the elate of enactment of the Act re23 gan!ing watet· quality or water quantity. 

24 (2) AUTHORI'l'Y 'rO ACqUIRE WATER RIGH'rS OR 

25 RIGHTS '1'0 PROPER'l'Y.-Under this section) on~y a 
291 


26784.256

71!CC1753:~ S.L.C. 

57 

State, loeal government, or other non-Federal entity 

2 may acquire, under State law, water rights or rights 

3 to property. 

4 (3) STA'l'E: AUTIIORI'l'Y.-Nothing· 111 this seeS tion6 (A) affects the authority, jurisdiction, or 

7 responsibility of a State to manag·e, control, or 

8 regulate fish and wildlife under the laws and 

9 regulations of the State; or 

10 (B) authorizes the Secretary to control or 

11 regulate within a State the fishing or hunting 

12 of fish and wildlife. 

13 (4) EFFEC'l' 0.1\ INDIA~ TRIBES.-Nothing· in 

14 this section abrogates, abridges, affects, modifies, 

15 supersedes, or alters any right of an Indian tribe 

16 recognized by treat3' or any other means, includ17 mg18 (A) an agreement between the Indian tribe 

19 a.nd the United States; 

20 (B) Federal law (including regulations); 

21 (C) an Executive order; or 

22 (D) a judicial decree. 

23 (5) J:-lli,JUDICA'l'ION OP \VA'rER RJGII'l'S.-Noth24 ing in this section diminishes or affects the ability 

25 of the Secretary to join an adjudication of rig·hts to 
292 


26784.257

~ICCl75:l3 S.L.C. 

58 

the use of water pursuant to subsection (a.), (b), or 

2 (c) of section 208 of the Department of .Justice Ap3 propriation Act, 1953 (43 U.S.C. 666). 

4 (G) DEPARTlllE:'-JT OP COliL\fERCE A'UTIIOR5 I'I'Y.-Nothing in this section affects the authority, 

6 jurisdiction, or responsibility of the Department of 

7 Commer·ce to manage, control, or regulate fish or 

8 fish habitats under· the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

9 Conservation and :Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 

10 et seq.). 

11 (7) EF'I<~Ec'r ox O'!'IIER AUTUO.RI'I'IES.-

12 (A) PRIV.A'l'E PROPER'fY PRO'i'EC'l'I0;\'.-

13 Nothing in this section permits the use of funds 

14 made available to carry out this section to ac15 quire real property or a real property interest 

16 without the written consent of each owner of 

17 the real property or real property interest. 

18 (B) lV1ITIGATIOi'\.-Nothing in this section 

19 per·mits the use of funds made available to 

20 earry ont this section for fish and wildlife miti21 gation purposes undet·-

22 (i) the Federal "\Vater Pollution Con23 trol Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.); 

24 (ii) the Fish and \Vildlife Coor·dina25 tion Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.); 
293 


26784.258

:IIGC175:):l S.L.C. 

59 

1 (iii) the \Vater ResourcE'-S Develop2 ment Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-6G2; 

3 100 Stat. 4082); or 

4 (iv) any other Federal law or court 

5 settlement. 

6 (C) CLE:A~ WN!'ER ACT.-Nothing in this 

7 section affects any provision of the Federal 

8 \Vater Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et 

9 seq.), including any definition in that Act. 

10 (k) No:-:APPLICABII;I'l'Y OF FEDERAL ADVISORY 

11 Co:vri\UT'l'EE AcT.-The Federal Advisory Committee Act 

12 (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to13 ( 1) the Boanl; or 

14 (2) mw Partnership. 

15 (l) FGi'iDii':G.-

16 ( 1) AUTIIORIZA'!'IO~ OF APPROPRIA'l'IO~S.-

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

(A) FISH IL\.BI'l'A'l' CONSERVA'l'IO:\' 

PROJECTS.-There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary $7,200,000 for each of 

fiscal years 2018 through 2022 to provide 

funds for fish habitat conservation projects approved under subsection (e)(6), of ·which 5 percent shall be made available for each fiscal year 

for prqjects canied out by Indian tribes. 
294 


26784.259

~ICC175a:3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

S.L.C. 

60 

(B) AmU:\'IS'l'HA'l'IVE AND PL.t\...'1\NING EXPE:"\SES.-There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for each of fiscal years 

2018 through 2022 an amount equal to 5 percent of the amount appropriated for the applicable fiscal year pursuant to subparagraph 

(A)-

(i) for administrative and planning expenses; and 

(ii) to carry out subsection (i). 

(0) TECHNICAJj A1\'D SCIENTIFIC ASSIS'l'-

AI\CE.-There is authorized to be appropriated 

for each of fiscal years 2018 throug-h 2022 to 

carry out, and provide technical and scientific 

assistance under, subsection (f)-

(i) $500,000 to the Secretary for use 

by the United States Fish and \Vildlife 

Service; 

(ii) $500,000 to the NOAA Assistant 

Administrator for use by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; 

(iii) $500,000 to the EPA ..t\.ssistant 

Administrator for use by the Environmental Protection Ag-ency; and 
295 


26784.260

oiCC175!l3 S.L.C. 

61 

(iv) $500,000 to the Secretary for use 

2 by the United States Geological Survey. 

3 (2) AGREE~IENTS AND GRA.i\''l'S.-The Secretary 

4 may5 (A) on the recommendation of the Board, 

6 and nonvithstanding sections 6304 and 6305 of 

7 title 31, United States Code, and the Federal 

8 Financial Assistance Management Improvement 

9 Act of 1999 (31 U.S.C. 6101 note; Public !Jaw 

10 106-107), enter into a grant agreement, coop11 erative agreement, or contract with a Partner12 ship or other entity for a fish habitat conserva13 tion project or restor·ation or enhancement 

14 project; 

15 (B) apply for, accept, and use a gr·ant 

16 from any individual or entity to carry out the 

17 purposes of this section; and 

18 (C) make funds available to any Federal 

19 department or ag·ency for use by that depm·t20 ment or agency to provide grants for any fish 

21 habitat protection project, f'estoration project, 

22 or enhancement project that the Secretary de23 termines to be consistent with this section. 

24 (3) DO:-JNfiOXS.-

25 (A) IN GE!\rFJRAI_,.-The Secretary may-
296 


26784.261

S.hC. 

62 

(i) enter into an agreement with any 

2 organization described in section 501(c)(3) 

3 of the Intel'llal Revenue Code of 1986 that 

4 is exempt from taxation under section 

5 501 (a) of that Code to solicit private dona6 tions to carry out the purposes of this sec7 tion; and 

8 (ii) accept donations of fnncls, prop9 erty, and services to carry out the purposes 

1 0 of this section. 

11 (B) TRF.u\Ti\IEXT.-A donation accepted 

12 under this section13 (i) shall be considered to be a gift or 

14 bequest to, or othenvise for the use of, the 

15 United States; and 

16 (ii) may be17 (I) used directly by the Sec18 retary; or 

19 (II) provided to another Federal 

20 department or agency through an 

21 interagency agreement. 

22 (m) PROIIIBI'PIOi'\ AGAI;-\ST hiPLEi\fENT.t\.'l'ION OP 

23 REGUI..~ATORY AUTHORITY BY FEDERAL AGENCIES 

24 Alw Partnership designated under this section-
297 


26784.262

S.L.C. 

63 

1 ( 1) shall he for the sole purpose of promoting2 fish conservation; and 

3 (2) shall not be used to implement any regu4 latory authority of any Federal agency. 
298 


26784.263

July 18, 2017 

An Open Letter to Members of Congress and the White House from Scientists and 

Scholars on J<'ederal Wolf Delisting and Congressional intervention on Individual Species in 

the Context of the U.S. Endangered Species Act 

We, the undersigned scientists and scholars, urge Congress to refrain from de listing gray 

wolves (Canis lupus) in the Western Great Lakes and Wyoming. In particular, we urge you to 

oppose H.R. 424 and S. I64, S. 1514 and H.R. 2406. Gray wolves should be protected by the. 

Endangered Species Act, 1973 (ESA) until the legal requirements for delisting them are met. All 

listings and delistings decisions should be undertaken by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS), consistent with the best available scientific data, and pursuant to a robust administrative 

process that considers input from all stakeholders and experts. 

Over the past four decades, we have made incredible progress toward the recovery of 

wolves. Today, approximately 5500 wolves inhabit about 15% of their historic range within the 

contiguous United States. While we have made substantial progress toward recovery, the job is 

not done. Important work remains. In particular, the ESA requires that a species be recovered 

throughout a larger portion of its historic range than has currently been achieved. 1 

The American people are supportive of wolf conservation and the ESA 2 and we arc more 

than able to handle the work entailed by completing wolf recovery. The essential issues 

surrounding wolves livestock losses 3

, interests pertaining to deer and elk hunting4, perceived 

threats to human safety5

, and legal/political issucs6 - arc all quite manageable. 

Congressional de listing of wolves should be avoided because it would be an 

inappropriate shortcut. Our treatment of wolves through the ESA is a herald for how we will 

treat the ESA in general and for the hundreds of species whose well-being depends on ESA 

protection. Opportunities to work through some important challenges of conservation are cut off 

if and when Congress intervenes by making decisions about individual species in the context of 

the ESA. Such intervention can seem like an expedited solution, but its larger effect is to inhibit 

progress on the broader issues of conservation and ESA implementation. 

In recent years, Congress has increasingly made efforts to influence the management of 

individual species in the context of the ESA. These efforts have been motivated by local and 

special interests. As such, they eviscerate the essential purpose of federal governance and the 

ESA, which is to conserve species insomuch as doing so is a national interest. This concem is 

reinforced by broad public support for wolves and the ESA that transcends political orientation7 

1 See Appendix 1 for an explanation of the legal meaning of recovery under the ESA. The appendices attached 

to this letter are adapted from testimony provided by Professor John Vucetich for a hearing on wolves held 

by the oversight subcommittee of the House Committee on Natural Resources. That hearing was held on 21 

Oct 2016. 2 See Appendix 2 for details about the public's strong support for wolves and the ESA. 3 See Appendix 3 for details about wolves not being a threat to the livestock industry and about how 

individual livestock owners can capably reduce or eliminate losses. 4 See Appendix 4 for details about how wolves do not compromise the interests of deer and elk hunters. 5 See Appendix 5 for details about wolves not being a threat to human safety. 6 See Appendix 6 for details about legal/political concerns. 7 See Appendix 7 for details about American support for the ESA. 
299 


26784.264

We urge Congress to refrain from intervening with respect to the management of any 

particular species in the context of the ESA. 

With respect to wolf recovery, the two most important actions that could be taken to 

promote wolf recovery are for the FWS to develop: (i) a policy on "significant pm1ion of range" 

that is consistent with the ESA, and (ii) a robust national plan for wolf conservation and 

recovery. 

We must get wolf recovery right by developing a healthy relationship with wolves, 

recognizing the important role they play in our ecosystems and refraining from unjustified 

persecution. Our actions will be judged by future generations of Americans for the kind of 

relationship we forge with wolves and the fair treatment of our fellow citizens who are impacted 

by wolves in a genuinely negative manner. Those relationships, whatever they may be, will say 

much about the kind of people we arc. The American people arc supportive of this work and we 

arc more than able to accomplish it. 

Sincerely, 

John Vucetich, Ph.D. 

Professor 

School of Forest Resources and 

Environmental Science 

Michigan Technological University 

Houghton, Michigan 

Jeremy Bruskotter, Ph.D. 

Associate Professor 

School of Environment and Natural 

Resources 

Ohio State University 

Columbus, Ohio 

Adrian Treves, Ph.D. 

Associate Professor 

Environmental Studies 

University of Wisconsin 

Madison, Wisconsin 

Michael Paul Nelson, Ph.D. 

Ruth H. Spaniol Chair of Renewable 

Resources and Professor of Environmental 

Philosophy and Ethics 

Depart. of Forest Ecosystems and Society 

Oregon State University 

Corvallis, Oregon 
300 


26784.265

W Scott Am1bmster, Ph.D. 

Research Scientist 

Institute of Arctic Biology 

University of Alaska Fairbanks 

Fairbanks, Alaska 

David M. Am1strong, Ph.D. 

Professor Emeritus 

Ecology & Evolutionary Biology 

University of Colorado-Boulder 

Richard Baker, Ph.D. 

Professor Emeritus, Depattment of Earth 

and Environmental Science 

University oflowa 

Iowa City, Iowa 

Jonathan Balcombc, Ph.D. 

Director of Animal Sentience 

Humane Society Institute for Science and 

Policy 

Washington, District of Columbia 

Marc Bekoff, Ph.D. 

Professor Emeritus 

Ecology and Evolutionary Biology 

University of Colorado 

Boulder, Colorado 

Bradley Bergstrom, Ph.D. 

Professor, Department of Biology 

Valdosta State University 

Valdosta, Georgia 

Robert L. Beschta, PhD 

Emeritus Professor 

Forest Ecosystems and Society 

Oregon State University 

Corvallis, OR 97331 

W. Alice Boyle, Ph.D. 

Assistant Professor 

Division of Biology 

Kansas State University 

Manhattan, Kansas 

Joseph K. Bump, Ph.D. 

Assistant Professor 

School ofF orest Resources and 

Environmental Science 

Michigan Technological University 

Robin Carey, B.S. 

Conservation Conservator 

Children's Zoo at Celebration Square 

1730 S. Washington Ave. 

Saginaw, Michigan 

Guillaume Chapron, Ph.D. 

Associate Professor, Department of Ecology 

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences 

Riddarhyttan, Sweden 

Peter Chesson, PhD 

Professor, Department of Ecology and 

Evolutionary Biology 

University of Arizona 

Tucson, Arizona 

John J. Cox, Ph. D. 

Assistant Professor 

Wildlife Ecology & Conservation Biology 

Certified Wildlife Biologist 

University of Kentucky 

Department of Forestry 

Lexington, Kentucky 

Brooke Crowley, Ph.D. 

Assistant Professor, Departments of 

Geology and Anthropology 

University of Cincinnati 

Cincinnati, Ohio 

Megan M. Draheim, Ph.D. 

Virginia Tech Center for Leadership in 

Global Sustainability 

Faulty, Master of Natural Resource 

Management Program 

Arlington, Virginia 
301 


26784.266

William J. Etges, Ph.D. 

Professor 

Program in Ecology and Evolutionary 

Biology 

Department of Biological Sciences 

University of Arkansas 

Fayetteville, Arkansas 

Robert Evans, M.S. 

Wildlife Biologist 

US Forest Service, retired 

Iron River, Michigan 

TracyS. Feldman, Ph.D. 

Assistant Professor, Department of Natural 

and Life Sciences, St. Andrews University, a 

branch of Webber International University 

Laurinburg, North Carolina 

Johannes Foufopoulos, Ph.D. 

Associate Professor 

School of Natural Resources & Environment 

University of Michigan 

Ann Arbor, Michigan 

Bob Gillespie, Ph.D. 

Agriculture and Natural Resources Program 

Wenatchee Valley College 

Wenatchee, Washington 

Anthony J. Giordano, Ph.D. 

President & Chief Conservation Officer 

S.P.E.C.I.E.S. 

The Society for the Preservation of 

Endangered Carnivores 

& their International Ecology Study 

Ventura, California 

Jane Goodall, PhD, DBE 

Founder, the Jane Goodall Institute & UN 

Messenger of Peace 

Shawnee A. Gowan, B.S. 

Graduate Student 

Institute of Arctic Biology 

University of Alaska Fairbanks 

Fairbanks, Alaska. 

John W. Grandy, PhD 

Executive Director 

The Pegasus Foundation and 

The Pettus Crowe Foundation 

Washington, DC 20037 

Gregory F. Grether, Ph.D. 

Professor and Vice Chair 

Department of Ecology & Evolutionary 

Biology 

University of California 

Los Angeles, California 

R. Dale Guthrie, Ph.D. 

Professor Emeritus 

Mammalogy and Paleontology 

University of Alaska 

Fairbanks, Alaska 

Craig Harris, Ph.D. 

Associate Professor 

Department of Sociology 

Michigan State University 

East Lansing, Michigan 

John Harte, Ph.D. 

Professor of Ecosystem Sciences 

University of California 

Berkeley, Califomia 

Philip Hedrick, Ph.D. 

Ullman Professor of Conservation Biology 

Arizona State University 

Tempe, Arizona 

Rodney L. Honeycutt, Ph.D. 

University Professor and Divisional Dean 

Peppcrdine University 

Natural Science Division 

Malibu, California 

Rick Hopkins, Ph.D. 

Principal and Senior Conservation Biologist 

Live Oak Associates, Inc. 

San Jose, California 

4 
302 


26784.267

Timmothy Kaminski, M.S. 

Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research 

Unit 

University of Montana 

Livingston, Montana 

Ken Keefover-Ring, Ph.D. 

Assistant Professor, Departments of Botany 

and Geography 

University of Wisconsin-Madison 

Madison, Wisconsin 

Marian Kaehler, Ph.D. 

Professor of Biology 

Luther College 

Decorah, Iowa 

Barbara J. King, Ph.D. 

Emerita Professor of Anthropology 

College of William and Mary 

Williamsburg, VA 

Alex Krevitz, M.A. 

Biologist and Founder 

Kunak Ltd. 

Coarsegold, California 

Jennifer Leonard, Ph.D. 

Tenured Researcher 

Department ofTntegrative Ecology 

Estaci6n Biol6gica de Doilana, CSIC 

Seville, Spain 

Yan B. Linhart, Ph.D. 

Professor Emeritus, Department of Ecology 

and Evolutionary Biology 

University of Colorado 

Boulder, Colorado 

Sandro Lovari, Ph.D. 

Professor, Department of Life Sciences 

University of Siena 

Siena, Italy 

William Lynn, Ph.D. 

Research Scientist, George Perkins Marsh 

Institute 

Clark University 

Worcester, Massachusetts 

Malcolm R. MacPherson, Ph.D. 

Retired scientist 

Member SCB & AAAS 

Santa Fe, New Mexico 

Susan K. McConnell, Ph.D. 

Susan B. Ford Professor and 

Howard Hughes Medical Institute Professor 

Department of Biology 

Stanford University 

Stanford, California 

Wayne McCrory, Hons. B.S. Zoology 

Registered Professional Biologist 

Research Scientist and Consultant 

Valhalla Wilderness Society 

New Denver, British Columbia, Canada 

Molly McDermott, M.S. Candidate 

Institute of Arctic Biology 

University of Alaska Fairbanks 

Fairbanks, Alaska 

Lori Marino, Ph.D. 

Executive Director 

The Kimmela Center for Animal Advocacy 

Kanab, Utah 

J.P. Michaud, Ph.D. 

Professor 

Kansas State University 

Agricultural Research Center-Hays 

Hays, Kansas 

Philip Myers, Ph.D. 

Professor Emeritus, Dept. Ecology and 

Evolutionary Biology 

University of Michigan 

Ann Arbor, Michigan 
303 


26784.268

Charles R. Neal, B.S., Ecology 

(Retired) U.S. Department oflnterior 

Cody, Wyoming 

Reed F. Noss, Ph.D. 

Provost's Distinguished Research Professor 

Department of Biology 

University of Central Florida 

Orlando, Florida 

Ronald M. Nowak, Ph.D. 

Office of Endangered Species, US Fish & 

Wildlife Service (retired) 

Falls Church, Virginia 

Mary O'Brien, Ph.D. 

Utah Forests Program 

Grand Canyon Trust 

Steffen Oppel, Ph.D. 

Senior Conservation Scientist, RSPB Centre 

for Conservation Science 

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds 

Cambridge, United Kingdom 

David Parsons, M.S. 

Wildlife Biologist 

US Fish and Wildlife Service (Retired) 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 

Mark S. Peterson, PhD 

Professor Emeritus 

Editor-in-Chief, Gulf and Caribbean 

Research 

School of Ocean Science and Technology 

Division of Coastal Sciences 

University of Southem Mississippi 

Ocean Springs, Mississippi 

Eric R. Pianka 

Integrative Biology 

The University of Texas at 

Austin 

Austin, Texas 

Andrej Podlutsky, PhD 

Associate Professor of Molecular Biology, 

Department of Biology and Wildlife 

University of Alaska Fairbanks 

Fairbanks, Alaska 

Richard Reading, Ph.D. 

Associate Research Professor 

Department of Biology 

University of Denver 

Denver, Colorado 

Brett R. Riddle, Ph.D. 

Professor 

School of Life Sciences 

University of Nevada Las Vegas 

Las Vegas, Nevada 

William J. Ripple, Ph.D. 

Distinguished Professor of Ecology 

Oregon State University 

Corvallis, Oregon 

Andrew Rowan, Ph.D. 

The Humane Society lntemational 

Washington, DC 

Sahotra Sarkar, Ph.D. 

Professor 

Department of Philosophy 

Department of Integrative Biology 

University of Texas at Austin 

Austin, Texas 

George B. Schaller, Ph.D. 

Senior Conservationist 

Wildlife Conservation Society 

Bronx Park, New York 

Heidi H. Schmidt, M.S. 

Botanist 

Missouri Botanical Garden 

Saint Louis, Missouri 
304 


26784.269

Andrew Schnabel PhD 

Professor 

Department of Biological Sciences 

Indiana University South Bend 

South Bend, Indiana 

Steve Sheffield, Ph.D. 

Professor of Biology 

Bowie State University 

Bowie, Maryland 

Judy Stamps 

Professor Emeritus 

Dept of Evolution and Ecology 

University of California, Davis, 

Davis, California 

Heather Stricker, M.S. 

Wildlife Biologist 

Research Associate 

College of Natural Resources 

University of Wisconsin- Stevens Point 

P. Roger Sweets, Ph.D. 

Associate Professor of Ecology 

Chair of Biology 

University of Indianapolis 

Indianapolis, Indiana 

Teresa M. Telecky, Ph.D. 

Director, Wildlife Department 

Humane Society International 

Washington, District of Columbia 

John Terborgh, PhD 

James B. Duke Professor Emeritus 

Nicholas School of the Environment and 

Earth Sciences 

Duke University 

Durham, North Carolina 

Margaret K. Thayer, Ph.D. 

Curator Emeritus, Life Sciences 

Field Museum of Natural History 

Chicago, Illinois 

Richard R. Vance, Ph.D. 

Professor Emeritus 

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary 

Biology 

University of Califomia at Los Angeles 

Sacha Vignieri, Ph.D. 

Senior Editor, Science 

Washington, District of Columbia 

Jonathan G. Way, Ph.D. 

Eastern Coyote/Coywolf Research 

Osterville, Massachusetts 

Matthew T. Weirauch, Ph.D. 

Assistant Professor, Department 

of Cincinnati 

Children's Hospital, University of Cincinnati 

Cincinnati, Ohio 

Robert Wielgus, Ph.D. 

Professor and Director 

Large Carnivore Conservation Lab 

School of Environment 

Washington State University 

Pullman, Washington 

Diana Wolf, Ph.D. 

Associate Professor 

Department of Biology and Wildlife 

Institute of Arctic Biology 

University of Alaska Fairbanks 

Fairbanks, Alaska 

7 
305 


26784.270

Appendix I. Legal requirements for delisting as provided by tbe Endangered Species Act 

(1973) 

A species should not be de listed until it is recovered. A species is recovered when it no longer 

fits the legal definition of an endangered species, i.e., when it is not "in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of its range" and when the species is unlikely to fit the 

definition in the foreseeable future. The quoted text is the legal definition of an endangered 

species as specified in the Endangered Species Act (ESA). That legal definition means that the 

ESA has at least some restorative mandate beyond ensuring that a species is merely not "at risk 

of extinction." Recovery requires a species to be broadly distributed throughout portions of its 

historic range. 

Those views of recovery are well supported by considerable scholarship (e.g., Vucetich 

eta/. 2006, Tadano 2007, Enzler & Bruskotter 2009, Geenwald 2009, Kamcl2010, Carroll ef a/. 

2010, and Bruskotter ct al. 2014, Nelson et al. 2016, and references therein), congressional intent 

(HR Report 412, 93rd Congress, 1973), the history of endangered species legislation in the 

United States (see the section entitled "Why Focus on Significant Portion of Range?" Vucetich et 

al. 2006), the Findings section of the ESA (see second from last paragraph of Nelson et al. 2016), 

and arc consistent with numerous decisions made by several federal courts (e.g., Enzler and 

Bruskotter 2009). 

By this view of recovery, wolves in the conterminous United States are not recovered and 

should not be delisted because wolves occupy only about 15% of their former range. 

Some have argued that this view of recovery requires a species to occupy all of its fonner 

range. The explanation offered above indicates this plainly not true. Moreover, no one working 

to better understand the legal meaning of recovery has ever suggested this to be the case. For 

additional discussion on this point see Nelson et al. (2016). 

The FWS recently argued, in a proposed rule, that wolves should be de listed because they 

currently occupy all of the range that they can possibly occupy (78 Fed. Reg. 35,664). There arc 

two concerns with this position. First, the inability to achieve recovery is not a reason to delis!. 

Second, abundant evidence indicates that wolves could feasibly occupy portions of their former 

range that they do not currently occupy. For details, see Bruskotter et al. (2014). 

The Director of the FWS seems to suggest, in a letter to the editor of the New York Times 

(Sept 4'h, 2014) that limited resources available to the FWS are a reason to delist wolves and that 

delisting wolves would allow the FWS to focus resources on other species in greater need of 

attention. Limited resources is not an adequate reason to de list a species prior to its being 

recovered. If limited resources prevent the FWS from actively recovering a species, that species 

should remain protected by the ESA until the FWS has sufficient resources to actively recover 

that species. For details, see Nelson and Vucetich (2014). 

No less important than the legal meaning of endangerment, is that recovery requires the 

existence of adequate regulatory mechanisms (Sec. 4(a)(l )(D) of the ESA). There are significant 

concerns that such mechanisms are not in place. These concerns are reflected, in part, by two 

federal courts decisions, one pertaining to Minnesota and Wyoming.8 Related concerns have 

been raised for wolves in Wisconsin9 

'HSUS et al. v. Jewell eta!. 2014. U.S. District Court, D.C. (1: 13-cv· 00186-BAH Document 52) and Defenders of 

Wildlife eta!. v. Jewell et al. U.S. District Court, D.C (Civil Action No. 12-1833 (ABJ)). 9 Dr. Adrian Treves of University of Wisconsin and colleagues sent an open letter to the FWS in 2014, describing 

concerns about use of the best available science in the State of Wisconsin's postw dclisting monitoring report on 

gray wolves. 

http:/ /faculty. ne I son. w i sc. ed u/tre vesj reports/Letter% 2 Oto% 20 US F W S/Res pons e _to_ Acting_ Director_ Woo ley_ US F 

WS.pdf 
306 


26784.271

Appendix 2. The public is supportive of wolves and the Endangered Species Act 

Americans' attitudes toward large carnivores, including wolves, are largely positive. Recent 

research indicates that attitudes toward wolves have become increasingly positive over the past 

four decades (George et al. 2016). In fact, three in five Americans hold a positive attitude 

towards wolves only one in ten Americans have significantly negative attitudes about wolves 

(George et al. 2016). Even those living in wolf range have a largely positive attitude about 

wolves. For example, only 18% of non-tribal residents living within the geographic range of 

wolves in Wisconsin had a very unfavorable view of wolves (Shelley et al. 201 I). 

Despite widespread positive attitudes about wolves, some have a false impression that the 

public has a low tolerance for wolves. There are at least three explanations for this 

misimpression. First, some sociological studies suggest that attitudes toward wolves have 

become more negative over time; however, these studies tend to focus on hunters, those familiar 

with hunting, and rural residents living within wolves' range (e.g. Treves et al. 2013, Ericsson & 

Heberlein 2003). 10 While it is important to address these attitudes (see below), they are not 

representative of the interests of most Americans. 

Second, other research indicates that biased media coverage gives the impression of low 

and deteriorating tolerance for wolves. For example, Houston et al. (20 I 0) examined North 

American news coverage about wolves over a I 0-year time period ( 1999-2008). They found 72% 

of -30,000 paragraphs they analyzed, represented wolves negatively. They also found that these 

negative expressions had increased significantly over time. Yet, media's coverage of wolves 

does not accurately represent Americans' attitudes, and such media bias could lead to distorted 

perceptions of public opinion (see George et al. 2016). 

Third, the perceptions of wildlife professionals working for state agencies may be 

distorted by interactions with individuals who are not representative of the broader public or 

even the interest groups to which they belong. An example serves to illustrate: In 2003 the Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources hosted a series of scoping meetings concerning wolf 

management. About 80% of the -900 people who attended those meeting identified "do not 

allow wolves in Utah" as a management priority. At the same time (i.e., in 2003), a systematic 

study of attitudes toward wolves found that 74% of Utahans exhibited positive attitudes toward 

wolves. 

This case illustrates that state agencies can get the false impression of low support for wolves 

on the basis of such interactions. The concern is that agencies' contact with the public is not 

always representative of the public's attitude on the whole, or even of those who care about 

wildlife conservation issues. This circumstance is regrettable, but understandable, given that 

scoping meetings, for example, are often attended disproportionately by stakeholders who are 

especially upset about an issue. This case and these circumstances are detailed in Bruskotter et 

al. (2007). 

With respect to the small segment of Americans with negative attitudes about wolves and 

other carnivores, there is value in understanding the details of those attitudes. Psychological 

research indicates that intolerance for wolves (and other large carnivores) may originate from 

negative emotional reactions toward these species, and perceptions of wolves' impacts that are 

grossly at odds with scientific knowledge about these species (Slagle et al. 2012, Johannson et al. 

2012). 

10 A poll of attitudes about wolves was conducted by the state of Montana in 2012. The plurality of respondents in 

that poll expressed being very intolerant of wolves (Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks 2012). Methodological details 

of that poll have not, to our knowledge, been subjected to scientific peer-review. A concern with that poll is that 

the results are an artifact of disproportionate or misrepresentative sampling. 

q 
307 


26784.272

Other sociological research makes the case that poor attitudes about wolves arc 

associated, less so with the perceived negative impact of wolves, and more so with "deep-rooted 

social identity" (Naughton-Treves et al. 2003; see also Heberlein 2012). 

While it is important to ameliorate the financial losses caused by wolves for those few 

individuals whose animals are actually harmed, doing so is not likely to cause those individuals 

to have more positive attitudes, as was suggested by Naughton-Treves et al. (2003) and 

demonstrated longitudinally by Treves et al. 2013, Browne-Nunez et al. 20!5, and Hogberg et al. 

2015. 

A basic principle of wildlife management is that it be based on sound science. For that 

reason, it would be poor governance to manage a wildlife population on the basis of attitudes 

about wildlife that are profoundly untcthcred from scientific knowledge about wildlife. The 

proper role of government in a case like this is to work to ease the misperceptions of that small 

segment of Americans. 

Unfortunately, there arc notable examples of state governments working to fuel hatred of 

wolves and inflame tensions between interest groups. For example, days after Congress delisted 

wolves in Idaho and Montana, the Governor ofldaho declared wolves to be a "disaster 

emergency" (Zuckerman 201!). That phrasing, "disaster emergency," is usually reserved for 

truly tragic events such as catastrophic hurricanes and tornadoes. 

The values and will-power of the American people, on the whole, support the ESA and wolf 

conservation. We are also a sufficiently resourceful and generous people, committed to fairly 

redressing the concerns and negative attitudes held by a small segment of Americans. 

10 
308 


26784.273

Appendix 3. Wolves and livestock 

According to a 2011 USDA report on cattle death loss, wolf depredation represents less than half 

of one percent of all losses (USDA 2011). For context, about half of all losses are health-related 

(e.g., digestive problems, respiratory problems, metabolic problems). Losses due to dogs are 

almost three times as common as wolf-related losses. Criminal losses, due to poisoning and theft, 

are six times as common as wolf-related losses. These statistics are similar within each of the 

states inhabited by wolves, i.e., MI, MN, WI, MT, ID, WY, WA, OR, AZ and NM. Wolves are 

not a threat to the livestock industry in any state or region of the country. 

One response to the facts described just above is to argue that no industry of any kind should 

accept losses on the order of 0.5%. That response would represent a basic misunderstanding of 

the circumstance. The circumstance is: Of the lost cattle, about 0.5% are attributable to wolves. 

Of existing head of cattle, some 92 million head, wolves kill approximately one hundredth of one 

percent- tantamount to a rounding error. 

An industry interested in managing its losses would tend to focus on larger, higherranking sources of loss. Of the 20 categories of loss tracked by the USDA, wolves are the 6'h 

least important. For example, even domestic dogs and vultures are each more important sources 

of loss. 

Disturbing images of wolf-killed livestock are sometimes presented as evidence for the failure of 

efforts to manage wolf-livestock conflicts. This is analogous to presenting emotion-laden images 

of a car accident as evidence that the nation's transportation system is, on the whole, a failure. A 

car wreck and a lost head of livestock are certainly both unfortunate events, but neither is 

evidence of widespread or systematic failure. 

In certain instances, wolves compete with the interests of individual livestock owners. Those 

instances are important. The American people share a burden to assist in these instances. To this 

end, the states, the FWS, the Department of Agriculture and non-profit organizations all have 

programs to assist ranchers financially or with tools and management techniques to reduce 

conflicts with wolves (e.g., range riders, moving female livestock to give birth in safer locations, 

cleaning up stillborn young, electric fencing, electrified fladry or guard animals). Several 

varieties of these programs exist, focusing variously on: compensation for livestock losses; costshare and technical assistance for the use of nonlethal tools that reduce conflict; and incentive 

payments such as payment for presence of live wolves. These programs are very beneficial. 

Where there is a need to improve these programs, they should be so improved. 

Related to this concern, the legalized killing of carnivores to prevent livestock loss does 

not have a strong record of effectiveness (Treves et a!. 20 16). Most studies on the topic conclude 

that the killing has no positive effect and in some cases a counter-productive effect. Two studies 

of lethal control offer a countervailing sense. One of these studies concluded that lethal control 

had a slight effect in reducing depredation (Herfindal et al. 2005) and the other reported a 

significant reduction (Bradley et al. 20 15). The concern is that those results are not reliable 

because both studies are associated with non-trivial methodological shortcomings (Treves et al. 

2016). 

Treves eta!. (20 16) also reviewed studies aimed at assessing the efficacy of non-lethal 

control. Of the studies reviewed, only two were robustly designed (i.e., random assignment of 

treatments) and thereby capable of providing reliable inference. One of these studies involved 

livestock-guarding dogs and the other involved "fladry," a visual deterrent. In both studies the 

non-lethal control method resulted in reduced depredation. 

11 
309 


26784.274

Appendix 4. Wolves, deer, and elk. 

Wolves are not negatively impacting the health or vitality of any deer or elk population. Several 

considerations indicate that concerns over the impact of wolves on deer and elk hunting are 

overstated: 

1) Healthy wolf populations are vital to 

the health of ecosystems inhabited by 

ungulates 11 , as summarized by the 

image to the right which is taken from 

Ripple et al. 2014, which was 

published in Science. The figure 

represents a conceptual summary of 

12 scientific publications, and is a 

conceptual representation of what is 

known about how wolves influence 

the health of ecosystems. 

2) Ungulates are widely acknowledgedeven by scientists working for state 

wildlife agencies - to be 

overabundant in many portions of 

current and historic wolf range. 

Overabundant ungulate populations 

are widely understood to be of 

significant detriment to agriculture, 

forestry, private prope1iy, and human 

safety (deer-vehicle collisions). 

3) Ungulate hunting is successful in all 

states where wolves live. For 

example, in 2015 Idaho experienced 

record high harvest of white-tailed 

deer and the highest harvest of elk 

since 1996. The high numbers were 

not attributed to the state's control of 

wolf predation, but instead to a series 

fil} 4. Cmt(~ li~«,ttllm ~hDIIW'ir>9 dir«l hoUd hnn) -..d l..tirttl id.li:tdWd line! dt"'lb o:l' 

IJI,If wuU tl'il"o6ut:tkl11 liwtu tM Gte.ttf'l Yd!o.,.tlonot t'(ID'1nk._ \'1\-.11 l'ht'tl1'~~~ ':l.s;l't" ~~~"' 

dtK1.1'1~er>':l"t! fo• .,.to; •.91$1 Jt~ to~<rl'l'~ 1~11. ~'~>~!.',n ,ld\•~1 'l'lltth '1<1'11" l~ ~'tlllin Itt t>l>.:>r>l}~"" t:MI 

irr-~tll l'!'ol.:"'l'nJh f)'~ IIO'::dv :j,.w"<t'. 1;0'(!1, \t-N·n fr\(!trfQJC~m-- \j-tl, L~.h-':"' ()5), tlt't't> UOD, t"'Trf 

ptm\l.od!G<l J.t;J!, 1«.-.'(""N,I'tf' f5J) .,.,.!J f.oe.:n f:N_., 1!3"! ~h"' ~~ ot vr·,nbt~d tll<l<}i,.rt;, .md '!u'.. .oC i~M a.·;d 

t:c;.t•K ll'lt"'Jtln:w!'. sl' "-~'' >.:."',~,'"Wit' :,<,..- !ht,q-Mm~"'¢t .tr.t.~'<'\\ .wy uet.-Jt~l1r;,p·I'XI#l' t'r!•·>Jt 

~1 f'V"''"~· brr-~·'1\. ~<'-tl ~- e~<;t~ U.:;&,d:;t ,"r)J.:ll!"l!H\, -,;j'<Jd", .u~ .1-\1 t.,.t ill~'>~ Y.-!b~q-,~ J)f<'tt..1D' 

t;\l'lli.'l.,~~<~ JV>1'1~lJ'"" .ttll!-tt rU. .l(r ;;J"t'¥ 

of mild winters (Idaho Fish and Game 2016). Moreover, hunters' dissatisfaction with 

ungulate harvest, where it occurs, is likely connected less with any discernable effect of 

wolves and more with ill-infonned perceptions of how wolves impact ungulate populations, 

lack of trust in state wildlife agencies, and unrealistic expectations concerning the harvest 

levels. It would be valuable for state wildlife agencies to tend those likely sources of 

dissatisfaction. 

4) In many places where ungulates are less abundant, poor habitat is believed to be the limiting 

factor, not wolf predation. 

5) It is normal and healthy for ungulate populations to fluctuate in response to many factors··· 

the most important factors being winter severity, habitat quality, and human hunting. It is a 

deeply unrealistic expectation to think that ungulate abundance would not fluctuate over 

time. 

11 The word "ungulate" is a generic term that refers, In this case, to deer or elk. 

17 
310 


26784.275

Moreover, observing a decline in ungulate abundance is not evidence that wolf predation 

is the cause of decline. For example, during a Congressional oversight hearing held on Sept 

21, Rep. Benishek seemed to suggest that wolf predation was the reason the Michigan 

Department of Natural Resources has allowed for fewer opportunities to hunt antlerless deer 

in Upper Michigan in recent years. However, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources 

indicates those decisions were a response to a string of severe winters that were the primary 

cause of recent decline in deer abundance (MI-DNR 2016). Three of the last four winters in 

Upper Michigan have been severe. 

6) Wolf predation is a relatively small source of ungulate mortality. For example, information 

provided by the Wisconsin DNR indicates that hunters kill approximately nine times as many 

deer than do wolves, vehicle-deer collisions kill approximately the same number of deer as 

do wolves, starvation in a typical winter kills nearly four times more deer than do wolves. In 

many cases wolves are killing deer that are less fit and vulnerable to starvation. In the 

absence of wolves, more deer would likely die of starvation (Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources 2009). Finally, poachers and hunters who do not retrieve the deer they 

shoot likely kill considerably more deer than do wolves. 12 

7) Finally, the views of Carter Niemeyer seem appropriate. Mr. Niemeyer is an avid hunter and 

served for six years as the wolf recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. He 

was also a long-time trapper with USDA Wildlife Services, and involved with both lethal and 

non-lethal control of wolves. Mr. Niemeyer stated in an interview with Outdoor Idaho: " .. .I 

don't think [wolves are] any excuse for not being a successful hunter. There's tremendous 

numbers of game animals available to sportsman and with a little effort and sleuth, you still 

have great potentia/to collect a wild animal from hunting. I don't know what the excuse was 

before wolves, but it has become the main excuse now for unsuccessfid hunters. I mean, there 

are just so many other issues involved in why hunters are no/ successful, but the wolf is a 

lame excuse." 

12 This assumes that wounding losses are about 10% of the harvest and that rates of poaching are on the order of 

4%, Those rates of wounding loss and poaching are consistent with peer-reviewed literature (e.g., Unsworth eta!. 

1993, Van Deelen et al. 1997, Nixon et al. 2001, Mayer et al. 2002, Grovenburg et al. 2011, McCorquodale et al. 

2011). By those rates (10% and 4%), these sources of deer death are approximately 40-50% more than what 

wolves kill, when considered in conjunction with information presented in Wisconsin DNR (2009). 
311 


26784.276

Appendix 5. Wolves and human safety 

Except in the very rarest of circumstances, wolves are not a threat to human safety. Incidents of 

wolves harming people are incredibly rare. Wolves generally avoid people and in almost all 

cases people have nothing to fear from wolves in the wild. 

In the 21st century, only two known deaths have been attributed to wild wolves in all of 

North America. There have been no deaths from wolves in the conterminous United States. Far 

more Americans are killed by bees or dogs than by wolves. Far more Americans are injured or 

killed in deer-vehicle collisions (U.S. Dept of Transportation). Our overall response to any threat 

to human safety should be, in part, commensurate with the risk of that threat. Moreover, it should 

be acknowledged that large carnivores are, on the whole, beneficial to human safety by helping 

to reduce the number of deer-vehicle collisions (Gilbert et al. 20 16). 

On the extraordinarily rare occasions when a wolf has appeared to be even potentially 

problematic, the appropriate agency (state or federal) has moved swiftly to address any possible 

threat. For example, in May 2015, the Mexican Wolflnteragency Field Team lethally removed a 

wolf that was exhibiting unusual activity near residents and populations in Catron County, New 

Mexico. 

The false impression that wolves are a threat to human safety is fostered by the 

interaction between (i) a public that is easily and overly impressed by certain kinds of fear and 

(ii) those who fabricate or exaggerate the threat that wolves represent. The seriousness of these 

exaggerations is illustrated with two examples from Michigan: 

-- A state Senator conveyed a "horrifying and fictional" account of wolves threatening 

humans. That account was included in a 2011 resolution urging the U.S. Congress to 

remove ESA protections for gray wolves in Michigan. Later the Senator conceded that the 

account was not true. See Oosting (2013) for details. 

--Adam Bump, an official from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, "misspoke" 

when he was interviewed by Michigan Radio (a National Public Radio affiliate) in May 

2013. Bump apparently said to the interviewer: "You have wolves showing up in 

backyards, wolves showing up on porches, wolves staring at people through their sliding 

glass door while they're pounding on it exhibiting no fear." Later, Bump conceded that 

this did not happen. See Barnes (20 13) for details. 

14 
312 


26784.277

Appendix 6. Legal/Political Concerns 

Some advocates for premature de listing of gray wolves argue that the only reason gray wolves 

are still protected by the ESA is that special interests have manipulated federal courts. The only 

reason that the FWS has failed to convince the courts that gray wolves ought to be de listed is 

because the FWS has failed to follow the legal requirements of the ESA. This conclusion is 

supported not only by the rationale presented by federal judges. See Appendix l for details. 

State governments have been asserting that life would be much better if the federal government 

allowed states to manage wolves. Idaho and Montana demonstrate that life is not appreciably 

better when wolves are managed by the states. Controversies about wolf management are as 

inflamed in those states as they were before de listing. 

1S 
313 


26784.278

Appendix 7. Public Support for the Endangered Species Act 

No less important than positive attitudes about wolves are attitudes about the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). Existing data indicate that public support for the ESA is widespread and 

strong. An earlier, sociological study concluded that four of every five Americans are supportive 

of the ESA (Czech & Krausman 1997). That study also indicated that 49% of respondents 

believed that ESA should be strengthened. In contrast, only 16% believed it should be revoked or 

weakened. 

Some advocates of de listing wolves are concerned that continuing to protect wolves 

under the ESA will erode public support for the ESA. However, recent polling suggests that 

attitudes toward the ESA have remained positive over the past two decades. In purticular, one 

poll, conducted in 2015, indicates that approximately four of every five Americans are 

supportive of the ESA (Harris Interactive 2011). Another recent poll indicates that support for 

the ESA transcends political ideology. That is, support for the ESA by self-identified liberals, 

moderates, and conservatives is 96%, 94%, and 82%, respectively (Tulchin Research 2015). 

Finally, data collected in 20I4 by the research firm GfK indicates that attitudes toward the ESA 

similarly positive in wolf recovery areas and the remainder of the country (see figure below, J.T. 

Bruskotter, unpublished data). 

Support for the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by region. 

WESTERN 

GREAT LAKES 

NORTHERN ROCKY 

MOUNTAINS 

REMAINDER OF THE 

UNITED STATES 

1fi 
314 


26784.279

LITERATURE CITED IN THE APPENDICES 

Barnes, J. 2013. Michigan's wolf hunt: How half truths, falsehoods and one fam1er distorted 

reasons for historic hunt. Nov 3rd, 2013. Mlive Media 

URL: 

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/ll/michigans wolf hunt how half t.html 

Bradley EH, Robinson HS, Bangs EE, et al. 2015. Effects of wolf removal on livestock 

depredation recurrence and wolf recovery in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. J Wildlife 

Manage. 79:1337-46. 

Browne-Nunez, C., Trcves, A., Macfarland, D., Voyles, Z. & Tumg, C. (2015). Tolerance of 

wolves in Wisconsin: A mixed-methods examination of policy effects on attitudes and 

behavioral inclinations. Biological Conservation 189, 59-71. 

Bruskotter JT, Schmidt RH, Tee! TL. 2007. Are attitudes toward wolves changing? A case study 

in Utah. Biological Conservation 139, 211-218. 

Bruskotter JT, Vucetich JA, Enzler S, Treves A, Nelson MP. 2014. Removing protections for 

wolves and the future of the US Endangered Species Act ( 1973 ). Conservation Letters 

7(4):401-7. 

Carroll C, Vucetich JA, Nelson MP, RohlfD.T, Phillips MK. 2010. Geography and recovery 

under the US Endangered Species Act. Conservation Biology 24(2):395-403. 

Czech, B., Krausman, P.R., 1997. Public opinion on species and endangered species 

conservation. Endangered Species Update 14,7-10. 

Enzler SA, Bruskotter JT. 2009. Contested Definitions of Endangered Species: The Controversy 

Regarding How to Interpret the Phrase, A Significant Portion of a Species Range. Va. 

Envtl. LJ, 27, I. 

Ericsson G, Heberlein TA. 2003. Attitudes of hunters, locals, and the general public in Sweden 

now that the wolves are back. Biological Conservation 111, 149-159. 

George KA, Slagle KM, Wilson RS, Moeller SJ, Bruskotter JT. 2016. Changes in attitudes 

toward animals in the United States from 1978 to 2014. Biological Conservation 201,237-

242. 

Grovenburg TW, Swanson CC, Jacques CN, Depemo CS, Klaver RW, Jenks JA. 2011. Female 

white-tailed deer survival across ecoregions in Minnesota and South Dakota. The 

American Midland Naturalist. 165(2):426-35. 

Greenwald D. 2009. Effects on species' conservation of reinterpreting the phrase "significant 

portion of its range" in the US Endangered Species Act. Conservation Biology 

23(6): 1374-1377. 

Harris Interactive (2011), Available at URL: 

https://www.defenders.org/publications/endangered species act poll.pdf 

Heberlein TA. 2012. Navigating environmental attitudes. Oxford University Press. 

Herfindall, Linnell JDC, Moa PF, eta!. 2005. Does recreational hunting of lynx reduce 

depredation losses of domestic sheep? J Wildlife Manage 69: 1034-42. 

Hogberg, J., Treves, A., Shaw, B. & Naughton-Treves, L. (2015). Changes in attitudes toward 

wolves before and after an inaugural public hunting and trapping season: early evidence 

from Wisconsin's wolf range. Environmental Conservation43, 45-55. 

Houston MJ, Bruskotter JT, Fan DP. 2010. Attitudes Toward Wolves in the United States and 

Canada: A Content Analysis of the Print News Media, 1999-2008. Human Dimensions of 

Wildlife 15:389-403. 

Idaho Department ofFish and Game. 2016 .Idaho's 2015 whitetail harvest sets all-time record. 

17 
315 


26784.280

URL: https :1/idfg.idaho.gov/press/idahos-20 IS-whitetail-harvest -sets-all-time-record 

Johansson M, Karlsson J, Pedersen E, Flykt A., 2012. Factors governing human fear of brown 

bear and wolf. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 17,58-74. 

Kamel A. 2010. Size, biology, and culture: persistence as an indicator of significant portions of 

range under the Endangered Species Act. Ecology LQ, 37, 525. 

Mayer MS, Fuller TK. Deb linger RD, McDonald Jr JE. 2002. Can low-precision population and 

survival estimates of deer be accurate?. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 30: 440-8. 

McCorquodale SM, Wik PA, Fowler PE. 2011. Elk survival and mortality causes in the Blue 

Mountains of Washington. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 75(4):897-904. 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 2016. DNR releases 2016 Michigan Deer Hunting 

Prospects report. 

URL: http://www .michigan.gov/som/0,4669, 7-192-4 7796-394499--,OO.html 

Naughton-Treves L, Grossberg R, Treves A, 2003. Paying for tolerance: The impact of livestock 

depredation and compensation payments on rural citizens' attitudes toward wolves. 

Conservation Biology 17, 1500-1511. 

Nelson MP and Vucetich JA. 2014. The Future of conservation and the tragedy of triage. 

Buffington Post, 23 Sept 2014. URL: http://www.huftingtonpost.corn/michael-pnelson/the-future-of-conservatio b 5870568.html 

Nelson MP, Vucetich JA, Bruskotter JT. 2016. Ecological value and the US Endangered Species 

Act: Comment on Waples et al. (2015). Endangered Species Research 30:187-90. 

Nixon CM, Hansen LP, Brewer PA, Chelsvig JE, Esker TL, Etter D, Sullivan JB, Koerkenmeier 

RG, Mankin PC. 2001. Survival of white-tailed deer in intensively farmed areas of 

Illinois. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 79(4):581-8. 

Oosting, J. 2013. Michigan Senator apologizes for fictional wolf story in resolution: 'I am 

accountable, and I am sorry'. Mlive New Media, Nov. 7'h, 2013. 

Ripple WJ, Estes JA, Beschta RL, Wilmers CC, Ritchie EG, Hebblewhite M, Berger J, 

Elmhagen B, Letnic M, Nelson MP, Schmitz OJ. Status and ecological effects of the 

world's largest carnivores. Science. 2014 Jan 10;343(6167):1241484. 

Slagle KM, Bruskotter JT, Wilson RS. 2012. The Role of Affect in Public Support and 

Opposition to Wolf Management. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 17, 44-57. 

Shelley, V. S., Treves, A. & Naughton-Trcves, L. (2011). Attitudes to wolves and wolf policy among 

Ojibwe Tribal members and non-tribal residents of Wisconsin's wolf range. Human Dimensions 

of Wildlife 16,397-413. 

Smith PA. 2014. Study sheds light on top causes of deer mortality. The Milwaukee-Wisconsin 

Journal SentineL 25 January 2014. URL: 

http://archive.jsonline.com/spmis/outdoors/study-sheds-light-on-top-causes-of-deermortality-b99190938zl-24199274l.html 

Tadano NM. 2007. Piecemeal de listing: Designating distinct population segments for the 

purpose of de listing gray wolf populations is arbitrary and capricious. Wash. L. Rev., 82, 

795. 

Treves A, Naughton-Treves L, Shelley V. 2013. Longitudinal Analysis of Attitudes Toward 

Wolves. Conservation Biology 27:315-323. 

Treves A, Krofel M, McManus J. 2016. Predator control should not be a shot in the dark. 

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 14(7):380-8. 

Tulchin Research (2015), Available at URL: 

http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/liles/PollingMemoNationalESASurvey.pdf 

Unsworth JW, Kuck L, Scott MD, Garton EO. 1993. Elk mortality in the Clearwater drainage of 

northcentral Idaho. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 57(3):495-502. 

1H 
316 


26784.281

USDA 2011. Cattle Death Loss. (May 12'\ 2011). 

URL: http:/ /usda.mannlib.comell.edu/usda/current/CattDeath/CattDeath-05-12-20 ll.pdf 

USDOT. 2008. Wildlife-Vehicle Collision Redution Study: Report to Congress. 

URL: https: I !www. fhwa. dot. gov I pub licati ons/researc h/ safety /0 80 3 4/ exec. c fm 

Van Deelen TR, Campa III H, Haufler JB, Thompson PD. 1997. Mortality patterns of whitetailed deer in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 61:903-

10. 

Vucetich JA, Nelson MP, Phillips MK. 2006. The normative dimension and legal meaning of 

endangered and recovery in the US Endangered Species Act. Conservation Biology 

20(5): 1383-90. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 2009. Wolves and Deer in Wisconsin. Dated: 

October 2009. 

URL: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wildlifehabitat/wolf/documents/wolvesdeer2009.pdf 

Zuckennan, L. 2011. Idaho governor declares wolves a "disaster emergency." Reuters. 

URL: www.reuters.com/article/us-wolves-idaho-idUSTRE73JOII201l 0420 
317 


26784.282

~ri.~bl ~b~.~y ,~.~ THE HUMANE SOCIETY ' OF THE UNITED STATES 

Celebrating Animals Confronting Cruelty 

EncL. 8emthal, E!>q. 

Chair of the Boan:i 

J.mmferLeaning, M.D., S.M H 

Vice Chair 

JasonWBss 

Second VK~ Chair 

K<1th~n M. LHwh;m, Esq 

Board Troo5l.JI'W' 

W.lyrn:!P.ln~Ue 

i're>Jd"'" & Chief E:uKutive- Offker 

Micha.e!M-arl::anan 

Chief Opetating Officer 

G. T00111<15W,lltt:>l!l 

Troosuror 

& ChWf Finandaf Officer 

Andmw N. Rowan, Ph.D 

Chief Jntmlational OfficPr 

& Chktf Srientifk OffK~ 

KattlNfn~l. Karl 

Goooral CounS(>/ 

& Chief 1 egdl Offiror 

AmyC RodgHS 

5ecrPial}' 

DtRECTORS 

JeffreyJ.Arcmi:~ca 

Eric L Bernthat Esq. 

DJ.Vld BfO'Nn~tl"ll'\ 

Enka Brunson 

10"r'( Ci!~aK 

Anita W. Coupe:, Esq 

N!!H a. fang, Esq., CPA 

Jom~ Greem.pun Gale 

Spl.!"OCN 8. Haber 

Amand;l He.ll'~t 

cathyX<Jng.;u 

Paula A K!~lak. D.VM 

Ch.!lr~A Laue 

Jenmfer leamng, M D, S M H 

Kath!Pen M. lmehan. Esq 

John M<Jckey 

Mary!.Max 

P.:ttnd: C McDonnell 

C thornas.l\JIC:Mt!l>'n 

JuctyNey 

SharofiLN:>Patnck 

Marsha R. Pemlman 

MargaretPewnchio 

MananG.Probst 

Jonathan M.Ratner 

Joshu;~ S, Rek:hert,Ph.D 

~Y.:I!terJ. Stewart,ESQ 

Andrew Weinstein 

J.asonwe.ss 

Suzy\1\'elch 

David 0 Wieber's.. M.D, 

July 24, 20 !7 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman, Senate Committee on 

Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Ranking Member, Senate Committee 

on Environment and Pub! ic Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Re: Protect iconic wolves for all Americans and prevent toxicity to wildlife and 

habitats from lead poisoning 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

On behalf of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the nation's largest 

and most effective animal advocacy organization, and our members and supporters 

nationwide, I write to express our strong opposition to the Hunting Heritage and 

Environmental Legacy Preservation (HELP) for Wildlife Act, S. I 514, which delists 

wolves in three western Great Lakes states and Wyoming and contains other 

provisions harmful to wildlife. The legislation would allow the iconic gray wolf to be 

killed in large numbers by some of the cruelest methods including trapping and 

hounding, prevents the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating toxic lead 

fishing equipment, and codifies exemptions allowing migratory birds to be shot over 

vast tracts of agricultural lands. 

Wolves are a beloved and valued American icon. 

In numerous polls, studies, and surveys, including in wolf-occupied states, the 

American public- by overwhelming majorities- have stated their appreciation for 

wildlife-including gray wolves (Canis lupus).' 

I. Walt: and grizzly bear-watching tourism drive over $1 billion in revenues to the 

Northern Rockies States ofldaho, Montana, and Wyoming, and create 17,600 

jobs: 

Grand Teton National Park: "In 2016, 3.3 Million park visitors spent an 

estimated $597.3 Million in local gateway regions while visiting Grand Teton 

National Park. These expenditures supported a total of9.4 Thousand jobs, 

$274.7 Million in labor income, $439.4 Million in value added, and $779.5 

Million in economic output in local gateway economies surrounding Grand 

Teton National Park."" 

Yellowstone National Park: "In 20!6, 4.3 Million park visitors spent an 

estimated $524.3 Million in local gateway regions while visiting Yellowstone 

National Park. These expenditures supported a total of 8.2 Thousand jobs, 

$238.5 Million in labor income, $383.9 Million in value added, and $680.4 

1255 Brd Street, NW, Svlte 4SO Washington, DC 20037 t 202.451.1100 f 201,778.613.2 humanesociety.org 
318 


26784.283

July 24,2017 I The HSUS's letter to the Senate 

Million in economic output in local gateway economies surrounding 

Yellowstone National Park."'" 

2. In the November 2014 election, Michigan citizens soundly rejected two laws 

authorizing trophy wolf hunts." 

3. In 2014, a Wisconsin Department ofNatural Resources survey of almost 9,000 

Wisconsinites that was heavily weighted to rural residents found that most are proud that 

Wisconsin is home to wolves, and most do not want them hunted or trapped, because of 

their enormous ecological and intrinsic values.' 

4. In Minnesota, a comprehensive survey found: "Minnesotans clearly value wolves. Public 

opinion surveys and attitudes demonstrated during development of the state's wolf 

management plan show people view the animal as ecologically important, scientifically 

fascinating, aesthetically attractive, recreationally appealing, and significant for future 

generations. Only a small minority fear and dislike wolves or believe Minnesota would 

be a more desirable place without this apex predator."" Minnesota DNR's 2012 public 

wolf survey asked, "Do you support hunting and trapping for wolves in Minnesota0 " 79 

percent answered, "No." A 2013 poll found that a majority of Minnesota voters opposed 

the use of traps, snares, and bait to hunt and kill wolves."' 

Wolves without federal protections are subjected to excessive and inhumane trophy 

hunting and trapping methods. 

Public opinion surveys reveal that the vast majority of Americans do not want wolves shot and 

killed for sport or for their fur, and that's precisely what de listing will produce. "" 

States have authorized the use of particularly harst methods for killing wolves: strangling cable 

neck snares; cruel steel-jawed leg-hold traps; fetid and toxic baits; and hounding with packs of 

radio-collared trailing hounds. 

Today, Brian Nesvik, Chief Game Warden for Wyoming Game and Fish, told the Senate 

Committee on Environment and Public Works that Wyoming's wolves require vast spaces and 

that the state has already accommodated that need. What Mr. Nesvik failed to mention was that 

those spaces are located on Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks and the Wind River 

Indian Reservation, home to the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapahoe Tribes. 

In the remaining 80 percent of Wyoming, outside of those national parks and Indian 

Reservations, the state's wolves will be killed without bag limits, seasons, or age limits 

(including mothers at the den and their pups), and using any manner of take Wyoming deems 

legal. This means wolves in 80 percent of the slate (half of which, or 25 million acres, are federal 

public lands), will be brutally killed---even driven to exhaustion over dozens of miles by snow 

machines and other off-road vehicles until they are shot." 

A few trophy hunters and trappers have even taken to social media to show themselves 

subjecting wolves to horrific abuse, including deliberate torture.' These activities are contrary to 
319 


26784.284

July 24, 2017 ! The HSUS's !etrer the Sen<Jtc 

the values of the vast majority of Americans, who want all animals, including our apex 

carnivores, treated respectfully and humanely." 

Wolves create trophic cascades, which benefit innumerable species. 

3 

These well-documented ecosystems services are myriad and invaluable."' Wolves and all apex 

carnivores significantly influence biological diversity and ecosystem function, and their presence 

even affects soil nutrients, soil microbes, and plant quality because decomposing carcasses of 

prey enrich soi Is. xm 

Wolves are not resilient to human persecution. 

Wolves are highly susceptible to persecution."' Large-bodied carnivores populate vast areas at 

sparse densities. They invest in few offspring, providing extended parental care to their young 

and limiting female reproduction. Social stability further promotes large carnivores' resiliency.xv 

Human persecution strikes at these animals' social structure, harming their persistence."' The 

effect of human persecution is ''super additive," meaning that hunter kill rates on large 

carnivores has a multiplier effect on the ultimate increase in total mortality over what would 

occur in nature due to breeder loss, social disruption, and their indirect effects including 

increased infanticide and decreased recruitment of their young."" Hunting wolves may 

detrimentally affect the fitness of individuals, change the evolutionary potential of packs, and 

increase the risk for local population extinction."'" 

Biologists suggest that now more than ever, wolves need greater federal protections against 

destruction."' The U.S. Congress has a public trust obligation to conserve wolves for all 

Americans and to ensure their long-term conservation." 

Federal agencies need flexibility to protect wildlife from toxic lead. 

S.l5!4 prevents the Environmental Protection Agency from limiting toxic chemicals, such as 

lead in fishing equipment. Like mercury and arsenic, lead is a known toxin and consequently has 

been removed from most consumer products such as paint, gasoline, plumbing, and children's 

toys. However, millions of pounds of lead fishing tackle are lost in aquatic environments each 

year."' This lead is often ingested by water and wading birds such as loons, whooping cranes, 

gulls, swans, geese, egrets, and herons, putting them at risk of lead poisoning. It takes only a 

minuscule amount of lead to poison animals, causing immense suffering before death. 

Some states have enacted lead fishing tackle restrictions: Maine, Massachusetts, New 

Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington have all banned the use or sale of some lead 

fishing tackle, primarily to protect loons. Lead poisoning from fishing tackle accounts for up to 

50 percent of adult loon mortality."" The use of lead-based tishing tackle and lead ammunition 

continues largely unabated in states without restrictions. 

Contrary to what S.l514 calls for, management decisions by federal agencies on toxic substances 

such as lead should be based on the best available scientific evidence. Regulatory agencies 
320 


26784.285

July 24, 2017 i The HSUS'slettcr to the '''nate 

should be allowed to evaluate and consider actions to protect wildlife and the environment from 

these chemicals. 

Hunting birds over bait is contrary to the principles of fair-chase hunting. 

The bill seeks to amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) by providing a statutory 

definition of"baited area" and express statutory exclusions from what constitutes a "baited area.'' 

While current regulations, 50 C.F.R. § 20.21(i), already allow the taking of migratory birds over 

certain agricultural areas, by rephrasing these exemptions and redefining what constitutes a 

"baited area," this bill threatens to broaden the areas exempted under the MBTA. 

For example, one of the areas that is not considered a "baited area" under the statute is one that 

"has been treated with a normal agricultural practice." However, the statute does not set a 

timeline for when an area should have received that treatment. Does this exclusion from liability 

apply to any field, so long as that field at some point in the past was treated with a normal 

agricultural practice? The bill offers a definition of"normal agricultural practice," but the 

definition does not clear this up. 

This type of statutory language, as well as language used to characterize other exemptions from 

the Act's take prohibition, docs not help wildlife, but rather threatens to expand judicial 

interpretations of hunting and other bird killing activity that is allowable under the law, despite 

being at cross purposes with it. For example, the bill proposes to also exclude from the definition 

of"baited area" all areas that "have standing crops that have not been manipulated." This 

language is not in the current regulations (50 C.F.R. § 20.21(i)), and can be read to exempt 

taking migratory game birds over virtually any area with a crop growing on it, regardless of the 

purpose for which the bait was deposited. 

Amending the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to make it more likely that many more birds will be 

unnecessarily killed does not help wildlife. Moreover, these broadly-phrased agricultural 

exemptions are unnecessary because under current law, the Fish and Wildlife Service already 

issues depredation permits on a regular basis to kill birds to reduce crop damage. 

Conclusion 

The HSUS strongly opposes any plans that would delis! wolves, limit the Environmental 

Protection Agency from regulating toxic chemicals such as lead, or allow the baiting of 

migratory bird species. 

Sincerely, till- 9JtWayne Pacelle, 

President and Chief Executive Officer 

The Humane Society of the United States 
321 


26784.286

iu!v j The HSUS's 

Endnotes 

'K'!l!;.· A George et aL "ChJnges m Attitudes toward Animals m the Umted States from 1978 to 2014," B10logir::al Consen•atmn 201 

http //dx dot org!http·/'dx dot orgfl 0 10 16.'j b1ocon 2016 07 0! 3. Kaner, and Jordan Petchemk, "Publtc 

Toward~ Wolves and Wolf Management i~ (2014) Kann 

"Nation a! Park Service, '2(116 Natwnal Park Service Vistor Spendmg Effects Report," hnps:!/www.nps.go\·lsubjec-tslsocialsctenceAse.htm 

(20!7) 

""Ibid 

·'Keep Michigan Wolves Protected, 'HIIp·//Keepwo!vesprotected Com:," (2014) 

' Holsman, Kaner, <~.nd Petchemk 

"Stephen Kel!crt, ''Minnesota Attttude Survey Prior to Wo!fOelisting," hTtp://www.woljo!g/wow!umted-stateslmmnesoh.:r/af!lfudes-and-Jssues-?i 

{1999) 

"' Howlmg for Wolves- Lake Research Pan:ners. "Majority of Mmnesota Voters Support Rcmstating a rtve-Year Wait on Wolf Hunting and 

Trapp1ng." hllp:llwww.howlingforwolres.org/m'li'Sipress-release-JmlJOnty-mlnneso/a-\'oters-support-jive-year-waf/-wolj-hunting-ond-trappmg 

(2013) 

'"' K. R ChJ!d and C T. Darimont, "Huntmg for Trop!nes Onhne Huntmg Photographs Reveal Ach1evement SatisfactiOn 

D;mgerous Prey," Human Dimensions ojWddl\fe 20, no 6 (2015!1 \!02 2015), http Jldx dm.org/10 

DJnmont and K. R Ch1ld. "What Enables Size-Selective Trophy Hunting of Wildlife?," PLOS ONE 9, no. 8 (Aug 2014), 

http.!/dx.dot.orglj 0 D7ltjourna! pone Ol03487~ Chns T. Darimont, Brian F. Codding, and Knstcn Hawkes, "Why Men Trophy Hunt_" Biology 

Le!lers ! 3, no 3 (2017), http"/!dx dot org/1 0 1098/rsb!.2016.0909 

"Ken Cok, "Rtmnmg over a Wolfwllh a Snowmobtle'J You'll Be Able to Do That m Wyommg !fthe New Deal between the Feds and Wyoming 

Becomes rinal ." hllp:/!www.thewildhjenews com/201 Jr08·1J3irunnmg-m·er-a-wo((-wah-a-snowmobife-youfl-be-able-to-do-rhat-in-wyommg-tjthe-new-dea!-between-rhe-jeds-and-ll-yommg-becomes-fina/,' (20 11) 

x 11t!ps://www.facebook com/WoiH:ulinary!nstj!ute/?(ref't~; httn:l/v.;ww.care2.cominews/membep'! 135619481367!! I 2; 

and https · / i ounv i sconsi nourwild h fc word press com 120 !4/08.' t 7 !gut -shooting-wolves-e-on !l icts-of-1 n tcrest-and-! he·tJCS· that-hind-i ust-another -davin·.,..tsconstni 

"Georgeet a! 

x" R Bcschta and W. Ripple. "l.arg~ Pred:ltors :md Trophic Cascades in Terrestrial Ecosystems of the Western Umted States," Biological 

Consen'allon 42, no 11 (200'ol); Robert Beschta and Wfl1ham R1pp!c, "R1ver Channel DynamiCS Fo!lo\'vmg bttrpat1on of Wolves m 

Northwestern Yellowstone Nanona! Park, USA," Earth S11rjace Processes and Landforms 31 (2006): J M Const1b!e, L H 

Lee, "Carrion- It's What's for Dmner Wolves Reduce the Impact of Cltmate Change," American Bwlogy Teacher 70, no 

A Estes ct al . "Troph1c Oowngradtng of Planet EJrth," Scm1ce 333, no, 6040 {Jul 20 t l ), 

u"'·'""'=-'="""""'!l!OU-"'Llli1J2· Wul!tam Robert Beschta, "Restonng Yellowstone's Aspens with Wolves." Btofog!cal 

L Yellowstone The First 15 Years afler Wolf Reintroduction," 

""Bump, J, R 0 Peterson, and l A Vucet!ch 2009 Wolves modulate soil nutrient heterogeneity and fohage mtrogen by configuring the 

d1stnbut10n of ungulate carcasses Ecology 90·J! 59-J 167 

"' .Jav S Mallonee, "Huntmg Wolves m Montana· Where Is the Data''!," Nature and Snence 9. no. 9 (2011) ChrisT. Darimont eta!.. "The 

Umq.ue Ecology of Human Predators," Sc~ence 349, no. 6250 {2015); Wtlham J R1pple eta!., "Saving the World's Terrestnal Megafauna," 

BioScience {July 27, :2016 20 16). http //dx.do1 org.'\0.1093/bwscl!biw092. S. Creel el al., "QueStiOnable Policy for Large Carnivore Hunting," 

Scumce 350, no. 62t.7 {Dec 2015). http://dx doi org!\0 I 126/science aac4768, Scott Creel and Jay Rotella, "Meta-AnalySIS of Relationships 

between Human Offtake, Total Mortality and Popu!Jtion DynamiCS of Gray Wo!vcs{C'anis- LuplrS),~ PLOSONE5. no. 9 (2010); J H. Schmidt .I 

W Aurcb, and M C MacC!uskle. "Effects of Control on the Dynamtcs of an Adjacent Prot.ected WotfPnpulat10n in lntenor Alaska," Wildlife 

Monographs 198, no I (Jut 2017). <Go to lSI> //WOS 000404130600001; Hndget L Borg eta!., "lmpltcatrons of f!arvest on the Boundanes of 

rrotected Areas fnr Large Carnivore Vtewtng Opportuntties," rLOS O.VF 1 C no. 4 C0\6). http"/tdx.doi.org/W. !37\,jouma! pone 0153808 
322 

Æ 


26784.287

lbJd 

'Danmont et aL Estes et al, R1pple eta! 

Evoluflon3!,no 

1'1w('OI1dorlJ63120J4) .J.08~ 

""Sidor, lnga [·, et al "Mortality of common loons m New England, !987 to ~000' JoumQ/ ofJFildlife Dt.wases 39.2 (~003): .106-J 1."