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




                   H.R. 1437, H.R. 1792, H.R. 2950,
                   H.R. 2982, H.R. 4051, H.R. 4094,
                       H.R. 4587, AND H.R. 4596

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

                          LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                               before the

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

                                 of the

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________


                        Thursday, July 27, 2023

                               __________


                           Serial No. 118-55

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources






                 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]






        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                   or
          Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
      
                               ______
                                 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

53-096 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2024










                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                     BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                    DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                  RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO		     Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA		     Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 
Tom McClintock, CA		         CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ			     Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA		     Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS	     Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA		     Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL		     Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR	     Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID		     Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN		     Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT		     Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI			     Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL			     Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT		     Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO		     Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR			     Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA			     Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU			     Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX		     Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY

                    Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                      Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
                 Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov

                                 ------                                

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

                       CLIFF BENTZ, OR, Chairman
                      JEN KIGGANS, VA, Vice Chair
                   JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Member

Robert J. Wittman, VA                Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Tom McClintock, CA                   Mike Levin, CA
Garret Graves, LA                    Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS         Kevin Mullin, CA
Doug LaMalfa, CA                     Val T. Hoyle, OR
Daniel Webster, FL                   Seth Magaziner, RI
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR         Debbie Dingell, MI
Jerry Carl, AL                       Ruben Gallego, AZ
Lauren Boebert, CO                   Joe Neguse, CO
Jen Kiggans, VA                      Katie Porter, CA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL                Ed Case, HI
John Duarte, CA                      Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Harriet M. Hageman, WY
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio

                                 ------                                









                                CONTENTS

                               ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Thursday, July 27, 2023..........................     1

Statement of Members:

    Bentz, Hon. Cliff, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Oregon............................................     2

    Panel I:

    Wittman, Hon. Robert J., a Representative in Congress from 
      the Commonwealth of Virginia...............................     3
    Boebert, Hon. Lauren, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Colorado..........................................    11
    Rutherford, Hon. John H., a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of Florida.......................................    12

Statement of Witnesses:

    Panel II:

    Kryc, Kelly, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International 
      Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
      Washington, DC.............................................    14
        Prepared statement of....................................    15
    Guertin, Stephen, Deputy Director for Program Management and 
      Policy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.....    18
        Prepared statement of....................................    19

    Panel III:

    Besher, Charlie, Property Rights and Environmental Management 
      Committee Chair, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, 
      Patton, Missouri...........................................    40
        Prepared statement of....................................    41
    Wolff, Steve, General Manager, Southwestern Water 
      Conservation District, Durango, Colorado...................    44
        Prepared statement of....................................    45
    Shawcroft, Gene, General Manager, Central Utah Water 
      Conservancy District, Orem, Utah...........................    49
        Prepared statement of....................................    51
        Supplemental documents submitted with testimony..........    52
    Gibbons-Fly, William, Executive Director, American Tunaboat 
      Association, San Diego, California.........................    60
        Prepared statement of....................................    61
    Genest, Genevieve, Donor Relations Manager, Galveston Bay 
      Foundation, Kemah, Texas...................................    67
        Prepared statement of....................................    69

    Atkinson, Seth, Quillback Consulting, Santa Cruz, California.    71
        Prepared statement of....................................    73
    Graham, Jack, Captain, Afishianado Charters, Nags Head, North 
      Carolina...................................................    77
        Prepared statement of....................................    79
    McCawley, Jessica, Director, Division of Marine Fisheries 
      Management, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 
      Commission, Tallahassee, Florida...........................    81
        Prepared statement of....................................    82

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Department of the Interior, Statement for the Record on H.R. 
      4094.......................................................   111

    U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Statement for the Record on H.R. 
      4596.......................................................   112

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Wittman

        Dive In with NOAA Fisheries, ``Atlantic Sharks: 30 Years 
          of Successes and Lessons,'' July 13, 2023..............     4

        Dewey Hemilright, Commercial Fisherman, Letter to the 
          Committee on H.R. 4051, dated July 24, 2023............     8

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Radewagen

        Various fishermen from the U.S. South Pacific tuna fleet, 
          Letter to the Committee on H.R. 1792, dated July 27, 
          2023...................................................    90

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Rutherford

        NOAA Fisheries SERO, Snapper-Grouper Committee, September 
          13, 2022, ``South Atlantic Snapper''...................    97

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Grijalva

        Oceana, Letter to the Committee on H.R. 4051, dated 
          August 4, 2023.........................................   113

        National Audubon Society, Letter to Utah Congressional 
          Delegation on H.R. 4094, dated July 26, 2023...........   117

        Various Stakeholders, Letter to the Committee on H.R. 
          2982, dated August 2, 2023.............................   118

        Representative Paul Tonko, Statement for the Record......   120
                                     







 
   LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1437, TO AUTHORIZE LIVESTOCK 
 PRODUCERS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES TO TAKE BLACK VULTURES IN ORDER 
TO PREVENT DEATH, INJURY, OR DESTRUCTION TO LIVESTOCK, AND FOR 
  OTHER PURPOSES, ``BLACK VULTURE RELIEF ACT OF 2023''; H.R. 
  1792, TO AMEND THE SOUTH PACIFIC TUNA ACT OF 1988, AND FOR 
OTHER PURPOSES, ``SOUTH PACIFIC TUNA TREATY ACT OF 2023''; H.R. 
 2950, TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, THROUGH THE 
COASTAL PROGRAM OF THE UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, 
TO WORK WITH WILLING PARTNERS AND PROVIDE SUPPORT TO EFFORTS TO 
    ASSESS, PROTECT, RESTORE, AND ENHANCE IMPORTANT COASTAL 
  LANDSCAPES THAT PROVIDE FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT ON WHICH 
 CERTAIN FEDERAL TRUST SPECIES DEPEND, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, 
  ``COASTAL HABITAT CONSERVATION ACT OF 2023''; H.R. 2982, TO 
    ESTABLISH THE NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY WATERSHED RESTORATION 
    PROGRAM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY 
WATERSHED PROTECTION ACT''; H.R. 4051, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY 
     OF COMMERCE TO ESTABLISH A TASK FORCE REGARDING SHARK 
DEPREDATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``SUPPORTING THE HEALTH OF 
    AQUATIC SYSTEMS THROUGH RESEARCH KNOWLEDGE AND ENHANCED 
 DIALOGUE ACT (SHARKED) ACT''; H.R. 4094, TO AMEND THE CENTRAL 
 UTAH PROJECT COMPLETION ACT TO AUTHORIZE EXPENDITURES FOR THE 
  CONDUCT OF CERTAIN WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES IN THE GREAT 
  SALT LAKE BASIN, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``GREAT SALT LAKE 
STEWARDSHIP ACT''; H.R. 4587, TO PROVIDE THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR 
 OF THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION SHALL 
   NOT ISSUE AN INTERIM OR FINAL RULE THAT INCLUDES AN AREA 
  CLOSURE IN THE SOUTH ATLANTIC FOR SPECIES MANAGED UNDER THE 
    SNAPPER-GROUPER FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN UNTIL THE SOUTH 
ATLANTIC GREAT RED SNAPPER COUNT STUDY IS COMPLETE AND THE DATA 
RELATED TO THAT STUDY IS INTEGRATED INTO THE STOCK ASSESSMENT, 
 ``RED SNAPPER ACT''; AND H.R. 4596, TO REAUTHORIZE THE BUREAU 
OF RECLAMATION TO PROVIDE COST-SHARED FUNDING TO IMPLEMENT THE 
ENDANGERED AND THREATENED FISH RECOVERY PROGRAMS FOR THE UPPER 
 COLORADO AND SAN JUAN RIVER BASINS, ``UPPER COLORADO AND SAN 
      JUAN RIVER BASINS ENDANGERED FISH RECOVERY PROGRAMS 
                 REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2023''

                              ----------                              


                        Thursday, July 27, 2023

                     U.S. House of Representatives

             Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:16 a.m., in 
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Cliff Bentz 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Bentz, Wittman, Graves, Radewagen, 
LaMalfa, Carl, Boebert, Luna, Hageman; Peltola, Hoyle, 
Magaziner, Neguse, Porter, and Case.
    Also present: Representatives Carter, Lawler, Rose, and 
Rutherford.

    Mr. Bentz. The Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and 
Fisheries will come to order.
    Good morning, everyone. I want to welcome Members, 
witnesses, and our guests in the audience to today's hearing.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any opening statements at the 
hearing are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Member. I 
therefore ask unanimous consent that all other Members' opening 
statements be made part of the hearing record if they are 
submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3(o).
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I also ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Utah, 
Mr. Curtis; the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Rutherford; the 
gentleman from New York, Mr. Lawler; the gentleman from 
Tennessee, Mr. Rose; and the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. 
Carter, be allowed to participate in today's hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    We are here today to consider eight legislative measures: 
H.R. 1437, the Black Vulture Relief Act of 2023, sponsored by 
Representative Rose of Tennessee; H.R. 1792, the South Pacific 
Tuna Treaty Act of 2023, sponsored by Representative Radewagen 
of American Samoa; H.R. 2950, Coastal Habitat Conservation Act 
of 2023, sponsored by Representative Huffman of California; 
H.R. 2982, the New York-New Jersey Watershed Protection Act, 
sponsored by Representative Tonko of New York; H.R. 4051, the 
SHARKED Act, sponsored by Representative Wittman of Virginia; 
H.R. 4094, the Great Salt Lake Stewardship Act, sponsored by 
Representative Curtis of Utah; H.R. 4587, the Red Snapper Act, 
sponsored by Representative Rutherford of Florida; and H.R. 
4596, the Western Water Accelerated Revenue Repayment Act, 
sponsored by Representative Boebert of Colorado.
    I now recognize myself for a 5-minute opening statement.

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

    Mr. Bentz. Today, we are meeting to discuss eight bills 
that address a variety of regional issues.
    Mr. Wittman's legislation, H.R. 4051, creates a task force 
to address increasing shark depredation.
    H.R. 1792, sponsored by Mrs. Radewagen, would implement 
amendments to the South Pacific Tuna Treaty that were adopted 
back in 2016. I will note that, as written, the bill will need 
modifications to meet House protocols.
    Mr. Rutherford's legislation, H.R. 4587, prevents NOAA from 
implementing draconian fishing closures in the South Atlantic 
until the South Atlantic Great Red Snapper Count Study is 
completed and the findings are integrated into the Fisheries 
Stock Assessment.
    Mr. Rose's legislation, H.R. 1437, gives ranchers and 
cattlemen more options to address the devastating impacts of 
black vulture predation by allowing them to take a black 
vulture that is causing death, injury, or destruction to 
livestock. Black vultures are not endangered, but are protected 
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which means they cannot be 
taken without a permit from U.S. Fish and Wildlife.
    H.R. 4094, introduced by Mr. Curtis, gives the Department 
of the Interior more flexibility in addressing issues 
surrounding the Great Salt Lake and the Salt Lake Basin.
    H.R. 4596, sponsored by Mrs. Boebert, authorizes two 
successful fish recovery programs that provide Endangered 
Species Act compliance for more than 2,500 Federal and non-
Federal water projects, depleting approximately 3.7 million 
acre-feet per year in the Upper Colorado River and San Juan 
River basins.
    Additionally, we have two bills sponsored by our colleagues 
across the aisle.
    Mr. Huffman's bill would legislatively authorize the 
program of Fish and Wildlife Service, which was 
administratively created and has been running since 1984.
    Lastly, Mr. Tonko's bill would create a new program 
specifically for what it defines as the New York-New Jersey 
Watershed. As written, both of these bills need to be amended 
to meet House Floor protocols.
    With that, I look forward to hearing from our Members and 
witnesses with us today.
    I note that our Subcommittee Ranking Member is ill, and we 
wish him a full recovery.
    I will now introduce our first panel. As is typical with 
legislative hearings, the bills' sponsors are recognized for 5 
minutes each to discuss their bills. With us today are 
Congressman Rob Wittman; Congresswoman Radewagen, right on 
time; Congresswoman Lauren Boebert; Congressman Paul Tonko; 
Congressman John Rutherford; and Congressman John Rose.
    I now recognize Mr. Wittman for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROBERT J. WITTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
           CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

    Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to begin 
by asking unanimous consent to enter into the record the NOAA 
Fisheries Report, ``Atlantic Sharks: 30 Years of Successes and 
Lessons,'' and then also the written testimony of Mr. Dewey 
Hemilright, a commercial fisherman from Wanchese, North 
Carolina.
    Mr. Bentz. So ordered.

    [The information follows:]
           Atlantic Sharks: 30 Years of Successes and Lessons
                      Dive In with NOAA Fisheries
                        New England/Mid-Atlantic
                  July 13, 2023, Southeast Audio file

NOAA Fisheries has successfully managed Atlantic highly migratory 
sharks for 30 years. Learn about some of the challenges of assessing 
shark stocks and combatting misinformation about sharks.

0:00:00.0 John Sheehan: Sharks inspire strong, even visceral reactions 
in people. They're beloved, feared, revered and reviled and hold a 
distinct place in our imaginations and culture.

0:13.4 S2: There is a creature.

0:14.4 S3: This shark, swallow you whole.

0:16.9 S4: To kill, it's a man-eater.

0:17.9 S5: You're gonna need a bigger boat.

0:22.5 JS: By the way, I don't invoke jaws lightly here. The 1975 
Spielberg film actually contributed to conditions that led the federal 
government to create an Atlantic shark management plan in 1993. And in 
the intervening decades, sharks have grown no less popular or 
polarizing, in the words of one of my guests.

0:41.5 Karyl Brewster-Geisz: Everybody has a strong opinion about 
sharks.

0:44.2 JS: And as is often the case, when strong emotions are involved, 
the conversation about how sharks are handled and managed can itself 
get pretty muddled. This is Dive In With NOAA Fisheries. I'm John 
Sheehan, and today we're discussing sharks, specifically Atlantic 
highly migratory sharks managed by NOAA Fisheries, which has been doing 
so successfully for 30 years. We'll discuss the challenges to assessing 
shark stocks and combating the constant misinformation about sharks 
leading to lasting misconceptions and some of those strong public 
feelings that I mentioned earlier. My guests are Karyl Brewster-Geisz, 
branch chief for regulations of the Atlantic HMS Management Division.

0:01:26.9 KB: We manage the shark, swordfish, tuna and bill fish 
fisheries throughout the Atlantic, from the state of Maine through the 
Gulf of Mexico to the state of Texas. And we also include the 
Caribbean.

0:01:39.6 JS: And Dr. Enric Cortes, a senior scientist at the Southeast 
Fisheries Science Center.

0:01:45.1 Dr. Enric Cortes: My role has been essentially to do shark 
stock assessments. So I work on the population dynamics, life history 
issues, etcetera.

0:01:53.9 JS: And what kinds of sharks are we talking about?

0:01:55.9 KB: Oh, all sorts of sharks. Some of our more coastal ranging 
species such as lemon sharks or black tip sharks. And then you have 
sharks that go all the way across the ocean, like blue sharks or 
Shortfin mako. We manage about 40 different species of sharks.

0:02:12.4 JS: Now, before we get to recent history, I think it's 
helpful to start with a brief look at shark fisheries over the last 
century or so.

0:02:20.6 DC: Sharks have been caught recreationally in the US since at 
least the 19th century, if not before. Sharks were not commercially 
caught in any significance until approximately the 1920s, when this 
company called the Ocean Leather Company, started catching sharks for 
their skin to make leather and also collecting some fins. From 
approximately 1935 to 1950 on the Atlantic Coast, on the east coast of 
Florida, there was a dedicated shark fishery for liver oil, because 
that's where Vitamin A was extracted from. But in 1950, vitamin A was 
synthesized and so there was no longer a need to get it from the liver 
oil of sharks. So shark fisheries went down considerably. Fast 
forwarding now to approximately the early 1970s, shark meat consumption 
in the US started to take off and concomitant with that was the opening 
of the Asian shark fin market to the US. And then in the mid 1970s 
there was the release of the book and the movie, Jaws, which led to a 
big increase in recreational fishing.

0:03:39.1 JS: See, Jaws. And this brings us to more recent decades. 
Here's Karyl Brewster-Geisz.

0:03:45.7 KB: In the late 1980s, the five fishery management councils 
along the Atlantic coast were really concerned about the status of 
sharks and how much fishing pressure was going on in those species. 
They figured out they would have a really hard time managing these 
species because it encompassed the full range of all five councils. So 
they asked the Secretary of Commerce to manage sharks, and in 1992 the 
science center produced a stock assessment final report that showed 
that a number of shark species were over fished. And that triggered a 
1993 fishery management plan, which was the first federal fishery 
management plan for sharks. And that's what we're celebrating.

0:04:35.3 JS: Wow. So because sharks had so much pressure on them, it 
just needed to have an overarching body specifically devoted to sharks.

0:04:43.0 KB: Specifically devoted to sharks. Yes. A lot of fishermen 
back then used different gear types than they use now. And for sharks 
in particular, they would catch the sharks. And at the time they 
weren't . . . Not all the sharks, they knew how to process well enough 
to eat the meat. So they would keep the fins and dispose of the 
carcass. And that's where fining comes from. Because the fins were 
worth a lot of money. It wouldn't disrupt what else was in the hold? 
Like the swordfish or the tunas that they caught, 'cause they could 
just dry the fins out on deck.

0:05:18.9 JS: Yes, and that has been a very controversial practice and 
has been the subject of a lot of sort of uproar.

0:05:25.9 KB: Yes. Yes, it has. Yes, we banned finning back in that 
1993 fishery management plan. So it has not been a problem in the 
United States essentially since then. We've done a lot since that time 
to help close any loopholes. Most importantly, in 2008 we actually 
implemented what we call, fins naturally attached. So all commercial 
fishermen and recreational fishermen are required to land the sharks 
with the fins naturally attached to the body, so they can't remove the 
fins and then staple a whole bunch to this body, which has happened 
elsewhere. They actually have to keep the fin attached with skin to the 
shark.

0:06:08.7 JS: Since we're talking about sort of some of these 
milestones over the last 30 years, what have been some others?

0:06:14.0 KB: There have been huge improvements in terms of the data 
that's available. So that has improved all of our stock assessments. In 
1999, we implemented what we call limited access, which means for the 
commercial fishery, there's only a limited number of permits. So not 
anyone can go out and fish commercially for sharks. You need to have a 
special permit and you need to basically buy a permit from somebody 
who's leaving before you can enter. In 2008, in addition to requiring 
fins naturally attached, we also started what we call a shark research 
fishery. And this is a cooperative fishery where we work with specific 
fishermen to collect data. And it has been instrumental in all the 
things we've been doing, including the science, the underlying science 
we use for the management, along with helping us figure out more about 
what we should be doing for management. We have had a number of species 
be either rebuilt or well on their way to rebuilding. So an example of 
that will be the black tip shark, which back in 1998 we thought was on 
the way to extinction and now it's fully rebuilt and could withstand a 
lot more fishing pressure than we allow it at the moment.

0:07:28.6 KB: Other species would be like the sandbar shark, which was 
historically the major shark species is now under a rebuilding plan and 
is ahead of the rebuilding time period for that. In addition, we've 
added some species to our fishery management unit that we did not have 
in 1993. So an example of that is Smooth Dogfish or Gulf smooth-hounds 
and all of the smooth-hound complex. We added them to our management 
unit in 2015.

0:08:00.5 JS: Can we talk about some misconceptions? I think, shark 
finning is an example of something that I think a lot of people knew 
about, and maybe aren't aware that it's banned and that it's something 
that doesn't happen in the United States anymore. What other 
misconceptions kind of exist?

0:08:15.5 KB: Yes, there are a lot of misconceptions. People go online 
and they Google sharks and they immediately see all sharks are 
endangered and that is actually a big problem for us. And the finning 
issue that you mentioned. So a lot of people tend to group all sharks 
together as though sharks is just like one big species when it's not. 
There are hundreds of species of sharks and they are all so different 
and so diverse, and we do have some species of sharks that for a shark 
is relatively slow-growing and takes a while to have pups. So an 
example of that would be the dusky shark. It has been prohibited for 
over 20 years now, still over-fished still experiencing overfishing, 
but then you have other shark species that are relatively fast growing 
for a shark, like the blacktip and it's fully rebuilt now. The idea 
about finning, there's a couple of misperceptions there. One is, a lot 
of people tend to be surprised that we even allow a commercial shark 
fishery. And then the other one is surprised that commercial shark 
fishermen are still allowed to land fins. Commercial fishermen actually 
abhor wasting any fish. They wanna use the whole shark, they don't 
wanna just land the fins, so they use the meat, they use the skin, they 
use the teeth. Some parts of the shark are even used medically. So 
sharks are really good for us overall, not just in the water, but also 
as a resource to eat.

0:10:05.8 JS: And just to reiterate here, not only has shark finning 
been illegal in the United States. In late 2022, president Biden signed 
the Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act. It's part of the National Defense 
Authorization Act. Under that act, shark fins, except for those of 
smooth and spiny dogfish, but all others cannot enter into commerce and 
fishermen are still required to land the fins naturally attached to the 
shark. You mentioned sort of public surprise at some aspects of shark, 
such as that there is a commercial shark fishery. How else have you 
seen the public swing in their perceptions? Because, sharks are . . . 
They're both beloved and feared and in popular culture sharks are . . . 
They're iconic and people are very, very interested in them. How have 
you seen sort of the public's swing of emotions regarding sharks?

0:11:01.3 KB: Yes. Everybody has a strong opinion about sharks and if 
could ask somebody on the street and they would tell me what they think 
about sharks and it has swung a lot over the years. So when I first 
started, primarily people thought of them as dangerous and they were 
afraid to go in the water. And this was . . . It was still about 20 
years after Jaws, and yet Jaws really did have an impact on what people 
thought about sharks. At the same time, there were still a lot of 
people who saw sharks as a challenging sport fish, something to go 
after. And you think of shortfin mako or spinner sharks that actually 
jump out of the water and spin when they're caught. A lot of people 
really thought of them either as dangerous or as let's go catch them. 
Now, a lot of people wanna just save sharks.

0:11:55.8 KB: Sharks are important and they wanna save sharks. And that 
was virtually unheard of when I started. There seems to be a swing now 
toward a whole different issue where sharks are becoming, for lack of 
another word, pests, where recreational and commercial fishermen are 
constantly fighting against the sharks in order to land other species. 
So they might be fishing for snapper or grouper or Yellowfin tuna, and 
before they can get the fish into the boat, the sharks come and eat 
them. And that's called depredation. Similarly, they might be out there 
enjoying a nice day recreational fishing, they catch whatever it is 
they wanna catch, say a snapper or a king mackerel. And then they 
release that back into the water and a shark eats it. And that's called 
scavenging. It's similar to the depredation. And so a lot of commercial 
and recreational fishermen throughout the region, for the entire 
Atlantic and the Caribbean are really coming to see sharks as pests.

0:13:00.5 JS: What's the management response to that? How do you deal 
with that?

0:13:03.7 KB: That is what we are still coming to terms with. We are 
trying to work with a lot of the fishermen. A lot of the scientists 
have been working with fishermen, trying to get a sense of how you can 
mitigate that. We're not gonna change the fact that sharks are 
predators. So we need to really work with the fishermen to come up with 
a proper response. One of our main concerns is that fishermen will 
become so upset over this, that they will start intentionally killing 
the sharks. And that of course, we wanna avoid at all costs. We don't 
wanna end up back where we were when the fishery management plant 
started in 1993.

0:13:46.1 JS: A few weeks ago, an example of this issue of shark 
depredation played out publicly. A fishing crew participating in the 
Big Rock Blue Marlin Tournament in North Carolina lost out on a three 
and a half million dollar prize. When it was determined their catch had 
been mutilated and therefore were disqualified.

0:14:03.8 S8: It would appear that this fish has been bitten by a 
shark.

0:14:08.7 JS: You can bet that crew has feelings about depredation. Of 
course, it's also a sign that the management efforts of the last 30 
years, efforts to stabilize and protect shark populations are working. 
Here's Dr. Enric Cortes.

0:14:23.9 DC: It's related to the boom and bust cycle of shark 
fisheries in my opinion. There is a short period of very intense 
exploitation, the boom, which is followed by a bust, so a drastic 
declining catches. We had a really large increase in catches in the mid 
1980s to early 1990s, and since then we've had increasingly restricting 
regulations. So to me, that shows the recovery period. That can explain 
why we are now seeing a lot of the populations that are increasing and 
it's manifested by the depredation.

0:15:02.4 JS: Yes. Is over-exploitation still a threat to sharks? And I 
mean, if not, what are the threats to sharks?

0:15:11.3 DC: Yes. So traditionally and historically fisheries have 
been the main threat to sharks. One issue with sharks is that even if 
you control the targeted fisheries, sharks are caught in a large amount 
of fisheries and gears. So that's what we call bycatch or incidental 
catch. And that makes managing shark fisheries very difficult. Also 
assessing them, because we have to account for the sharks that are 
caught in all these fisheries, which oftentimes we don't have a good 
handle on because those have to be estimated, they have to be 
observations, reports, etcetera. Another threat . . . The main one is 
fisheries. But then you have habitat loss or habitat degradation. So 
what happens, for example, with number of species of small and large 
coastal sharks is that they give birth in very shallow coastal areas. 
So with human construction and contamination, etcetera, that can pose 
problems to the survivorship or those early life stages.

0:16:19.6 DC: Another re-merging problem is climate change. So climate 
change, I just wanna make clear that we don't really know yet what the 
effects of climate change are or will be, because in many cases we 
don't have baseline data. So we cannot tell how things have changed 
when we don't know the status quo. What we can say though is the risks 
that are out there. So warming water temperatures that may change their 
distribution, things like ocean acidification, increased uptake of CO2 
can also affect their prey. I mean, there is a cascading effect, and so 
it's a lot of potential risk of climate change, but we don't know yet 
what those are.

0:17:01.9 JS: So what is it about sharks that makes them vulnerable, 
either to exploitation or these changing conditions?

0:17:09.1 DC: So in general sharks, and not only sharks, but what we 
call elasmobranchs, which are shark, skates and rays, they grow slowly. 
They attain sexual maturity at a late age. And so they reproduce, their 
first reproduction is very delayed. They live many years. They have low 
fecundity. So only a certain number of pups that are born fully 
developed. In general, there are different types of reproduction, but 
in general, they're born fully developed mini replicas of the adults. 
So they are ready to go, so to speak. They also have long gestation 
periods and their breathing frequencies, so how often they made is very 
long. So many species reproduce every year, but other species reproduce 
every two or three years, maybe even more. So those are things that we 
are . . . We have made a lot of progress on, but we still have a lot of 
unknowns on. So that's a problem with sharks. So they have developed 
this life history strategy over the course of approximately 400 million 
years of evolution. So just having a few pups, a few offspring, makes 
it OK for them to maintain their population levels because they have 
few predators, probably larger sharks are their main predators. So 
that's a problem with sharks. Their low reproductive potential is 
essentially their Achilles heel.

0:18:42.0 JS: Yes, and that's all incredibly complicated. And it sounds 
like contributing factors to what makes them so hard to predict and to 
model. Could you tell us what it means to model shark populations? And 
also what are the data that you need?

0:19:00.2 DC: Yes, good question. So the type of model that we use 
depends on the data that we have. So there are four main types of data 
that we need to assess the status of populations. So we have Catches. 
Catches give us a sense of the scale of the population, how large the 
population is based on how many are removed. We have indices of 
relative abundance, what we call CPUE or catch per unit effort. That 
informs us about the trend of the population, is it going down, is it 
going up? Then we have the biology, or biology life history, same 
thing. That tells us about the intrinsic vulnerability of that 
population. How much can they take? How much exploitation can they 
take? And then we also have, in some cases, length and/or age samples 
that inform us about the segment of the population that's being 
exploited, what age groups or length groups. However, that's in an 
ideal scenario. For sharks, we often are in situations that we call 
data poor or data limited. We seldom have all these pieces of 
information. We have catches, yes, but there is uncertainty in the 
catches because a lot of them are estimated. There is uncertainty in 
some biological parameters as well.

0:20:24.9 DC: Sometimes we don't know how many years they live. We 
don't know how often they reproduce. We are often in data poor or data 
limited situations. Assessing shark populations is not easy because of 
the oftentimes sketchy data, but also managing them is very difficult 
because of bycatch in many different fisheries and trying to quantify 
all those sources of mortality. It's not an easy task.

0:20:56.8 JS: Sure, and you've got the added pressure of public 
scrutiny because sharks are, as you say, these charismatic species and 
there's a lot of interest.

0:21:06.3 DC: That's a good point. This has increased a lot. Through my 
career, I've seen the change in the level of scrutiny of, for example, 
the assessments we do. And of course, the managers are very much 
subjected to that scrutiny as well. So, in one way, things have become 
better. Data have become better in general, but we're still a long way 
from having really good data. There's been a lot of advances in the 
modeling, but at the end of the day, we need the data to model these 
populations.

0:21:43.4 JS: Dr. Enric Cortes is a senior scientist at the Southeast 
Fisheries Science Center, though he has just begun a process of phased 
retirement.

0:21:52.0 DC: I may continue trying to do some research just for fun, 
to have some fun at the end of my career and see sharks in real life 
again, not just through the computer end.

0:22:04.8 JS: Today, we've barely scratched the surface discussing many 
of the issues surrounding sharks, but as Karyl Brewster-Geisz reminds 
us, there are many ways to learn more and to make your voice heard if 
these issues are important to you.

0:22:17.2 KB: The general public can comment on any of our proposed 
rules or ongoing regulations. We have a lot of information available on 
our webpage, and anyone can also go to regulations.gov to submit 
written public comments. We do read every single comment we receive, 
and we make a lot of changes as a result of those public comments.

0:22:41.5 JS: Karyl Brewster-Geisz is Branch Chief for Regulations of 
the Atlantic, HMS Management Division. You can always find lots more 
information at fisheries.noaa.gov. I'm John Sheehan, and this has been 
Dive In with NOAA Fisheries.

                                 ______
                                 

                            Dewey Hemilright

                          Commercial Fisherman

                        Wanchese, North Carolina

                                                  July 24, 2023    

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

Re: H.R. 4051, ``SHARKED ACT''

    Good Afternoon Chairman and members of the Natural Resource 
Subcommittee:

    Hello, I'm Dewey Hemilright from North Carolina. I appreciate this 
opportunity to provide written testimony concerning H.R. 4051. I've 
been both actively involved around the table in the fisheries 
management process and a Commercial fisherman for over 30 years. This 
included serving actively since 1995 on the Shark operation team which 
later became part of the Highly Migratory Species Advisory Panel (HMS 
AP). In 2011, I was appointed to serve on the Mid-Atlantic Fishery 
Management Council [MAFMC] for North Carolina until August 10, 2023 
when I reached my term limit. During that time, I've been an active 
Liaison to the HMS AP, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council 
(SAFMC), and was appointed to the U.S. ICCAT Advisory Committee (IAC) 
along with serving on the US ICCAT delegation since 2019.
    I have lived, worked and been actively involved in real time shark 
fisheries management and also the lack thereof. This has allowed me to 
be among the most experienced and qualified to testify on this bill 
H.R. 4051 [Shark Act].
    Prior to 1993, you could shark fish 365 days a year and there was 
no trip limit. This wasn't sustainable, and so NMFS implemented a Shark 
Fishery Management Plan (FMP) that set a quota of about 2500 metric 
tons and a 4000 pound trip limit. That changed the landscape for the 
better. Then, regrettably, NMFS cut the quota in half to 1250 metric 
tons around 1996, and what that did was shorten the season to directly 
harvest Large Coastal Sharks (LCS) with two seasons Jan-June then July-
Dec until the quota was caught during each period. A number of 
fishermen quit shark fishing, and also during this time there were 
States with hundreds of thousands of pounds of unclassified shark 
landings, which wasn't good.
    NMFS failed to manage the LCS throughout their range even though 
they had the authority and mandate to do so. The NMFS stock assessments 
were determined to be data poor and so basically they would assume or 
supplement numbers into stock assessments as `best available science'.
    With being a Commercial fisherman harvesting LCS from Dec 7, 1994 
to the fall of 2006 traveling from Mayport, FL to Montauk, NY 
throughout the year and with a seasonal quota and with 4,000 pound trip 
limits of carcass weight harvest of LCSs.
    After the Sandbar shark species stock assessment, which I focused 
on catching, was deemed overfished and overfishing occurring, NMFS 
stopped the directed harvest of Sandbar sharks. And then a limited 
number of vessels applied to enter into the Shark Research Fishery 
around 2008 and it basically gave a few qualified vessels about 200,000 
pounds per year divided among less than 10 participants from Maine to 
Texas. Yet the last 5-6 years of quota has gone unharvested.
    Over the last 10 years, federally permitted active commercial shark 
fishermen have decreased dramatically along with fishermen in other 
fisheries that interact with sharks. One only has to look at the NMFS 
quota monitoring website to see the directed shark fishery hasn't been 
landing its sustainable quota over the last 5 years. The only bright 
spot is Louisiana state water fisheries which continue to harvest a 
majority of the Gulf of Mexico quota, and the reason is that they allow 
fishermen to stack numerous shark, state permitted fishermen on one 
vessel [example one vessel could have 4 limits if that number of 
permitted fishermen were aboard].
    NMFS management has not been flexible at all with its trip limit 
where there is plenty of quota available. Instead they chose to keep 
the trip limit the same, not increasing it when possible, which would 
have helped with the harvest and the few fishermen that are left to 
make money.
    I can't remember the exact date, maybe it was in 2008, but another 
regulation was implemented which required shark fins to be naturally 
attached to the shark carcass when landed at the dock, which meant you 
had to double process your shark carcass, not under the best conditions 
at the dock and it was more time consuming. As a result, a few more 
fishermen have dropped out after that which further decreased effort in 
the fishery. The final nail in the coffin for the majority of the 
sustainable directed shark fishing industry was the recent, ill-fated 
domestic shark fin ban bill. This killed any chance of any of the 
available sustainable harvest of LCS or Small Coastal Sharks (SCS). 
There are now simply no fishermen left to work.
    Everything that the States, NMFS, and Congress have done to date 
has succeeded in destroying the domestic shark industry along with the 
fishermen that lost their livelihood. So, for the purpose of this 
hearing and the issues of depredation along with scavenging (which is a 
shark eating a released fish), these problems are going to continue and 
actually get worse simply because the management worked and now there 
are a lot more sharks everywhere.
    Given the millions of active recreational fishermen, both 
depredation and scavenging will continually get worse and could likely 
cause scientific uncertainty buffers to be placed in the Annual Catch 
Limit (ACL) available from domestic stock assessments. And further 
unknown factors if the Science and Statistical Committee (SSC) chooses.
    Now here's how to fix it, but the effects won't be immediate--it 
would take some time given the loss of fishermen, infrastructure and 
markets. Congress should immediately introduce a bill called ``The 
continued sustainable harvest of LCS and SCS species along with the 
regulation that fins are naturally attached and allow sale of all body 
parts ACT of 2023''. If you can't possess de-attached shark fins 
fishermen should be allowed to discard them at sea with the entrails of 
the shark harvested. This would send a very strong message to the rest 
of the world of the USA's commitment to the sustainable harvest of 
sharks.
    But most of all this would send a strong signal to American 
fishermen that Congress wants a US sustainable directed shark industry, 
because we have the best sustainable managed shark fishery even with 
its faults that could be worked on and be resolved in the near future. 
Such an Act should also include a BAN of any seafood imports that don't 
meet or exceed the U.S. regulations or gear used--that don't meet or 
exceed the sustainable conservation standards by which USA fisherman 
have to both harvest and report under. Such an Act would level the 
playing field for the AMERICAN fishermen and AMERICAN consumers. As 
well as send a message to the rest of the world that the US will not 
allow its marketplace to be open to unsustainable fisheries practices.
    If such major action does not happen immediately, two very 
important U.S. fisheries that harvest sharks will be seriously damaged, 
if not lost altogether, while the shrimp trawl fishery will suffer 
major losses due to sharks tearing holes in their gear.
    So what is it going to be?

    I appreciate Rep. Wittman's invitation to submit my 35 years of 
reality through my comments to this important issue and at the same 
time offer help in resolving it.

            Thank You,

                                           Dewey Hemilright

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Wittman. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would like to thank 
you and Ranking Member Grijalva for holding this hearing today. 
I think it is incredibly important.
    As we look at the balances that we see in our ecosystems, 
what we have seen is a resurgence of shark populations, which 
is good. But what we have also seen with that is shark 
depredation, which is essentially a very, very high frequency 
of the taking of fishermen's catch.
    While we understand it is a natural part of predation, it 
also is becoming a widespread issue in our waters, and has 
increased rapidly in recent years. Our anglers are losing their 
catch and tackle to sharks at alarming rates, and in some areas 
it makes areas totally unfishable because you are not able to 
compete with the sharks to actually bring your catch to the 
boat.
    I introduced the SHARKED Act to study this issue and to 
look into ways to improve sport fishing conditions for anglers 
while protecting sharks. And I think that we can do both. This 
bill establishes a fisheries management task force to focus on 
identifying research opportunities, recommending management 
strategies, and developing educational materials for fishermen.
    This legislation that I have before the Subcommittee today 
helps fishermen understand which species of sharks have higher 
rates of depredation. Essentially, depredation is the taking of 
a recreational fisherman's catch. And in many instances, too, 
commercial fishermen are having to deal with that also.
    And where is the most likely situation where the species 
are to intersect, where you have this depredation? This is 
going to serve as the first major step in improving 
communication and coordination among fisheries managers and 
addressing shark depredation nationwide. And it is a nationwide 
problem.
    There are a number of organizations I want to thank that 
have been part of this. The American Sport Fishing Association 
has been incredibly important. We have other leaders, too, in 
the conservation and recreational fishing field that have been 
very, very supportive of this effort.
    We want to get to a point of good public policy as it 
relates to shark populations and our recreational fisheries. I 
do think that there is a place where we can find a balance.
    Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the Ranking 
Member for holding this hearing, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Wittman.
    Mrs. Boebert, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF THE HON. LAUREN BOEBERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am proud to 
testify in support of H.R. 4596, my Upper Colorado and San Juan 
River Basins Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Reauthorization 
Act of 2023.
    My bicameral and bipartisan bill provides a clean 7-year 
reauthorization of the Upper Colorado and San Juan recovery 
programs that protect four threatened and endangered native 
fish species in the Upper Colorado and San Juan River basins by 
extending conservation programs at current funding levels for 7 
additional fiscal years.
    These programs provide legal certainty for 2,500 water 
projects, and ensure future water development in the Upper 
Colorado River Basin. These projects, including 1,200 in 
Colorado alone, provide water for local municipalities, tribes, 
major reservoirs, agriculture, ski areas, power generation 
facilities, and others that use more than 3.69 million acre-
feet of water per year.
    The recovery programs also facilitate water delivery from 
Navajo Flaming Gorge, which collectively can store more than 
6.5 million acre-feet of water as part of the Colorado River 
storage project.
    The Upper Colorado and San Juan recovery programs were 
established in 1988 to achieve full recovery of four federally 
listed endangered fish species, including the humpback chub, 
bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow, and razorback sucker. Those 
designations led to the threat of significant water and power 
use restrictions.
    For over three decades, states, tribes, and local 
communities, environmental groups, energy users, and water 
users have partnered to help recover four threatened and 
endangered fish species, while continuing water and power 
facility development and operations in the Upper Colorado River 
Basin and the San Juan River Basin.
    Non-Federal partners contribute $11 million per year in 
water contributions, plus another $750,000 in staffing and in-
kind contributions.
    Participating states contribute $500,000 to base funding 
each year in cash equivalents for recovery action, including 
for fish hatcheries and non-native fish removal.
    The Fish and Wildlife Service contributes $1.56 million per 
year in base funding.
    The Bureau of Reclamation provides cost shared 
contributions to both base and capital funding. Reclamation's 
capital funding supports major infrastructure projects at 
reservoirs, diversion dams, canals, and floodplains across the 
basin.
    Without these programs, these 2,500 water and power users 
would have to perform extremely burdensome section 7 
consultations for all 2,500 individual projects. Because of the 
success of these programs, the humpback chub and the razorback 
sucker are success stories, with the chub downlisted from 
endangered to threatened, and the razorback being recommended 
for downlisting, as well.
    Last Congress, I worked closely with the gentleman from 
Colorado, Mr. Neguse, on a short-term extension to reauthorize 
these programs until September 30, 2024. I am proud to report 
that this bill today is the result of months of hard work with 
local stakeholders, the Bureau of Reclamation, and Senators 
Hickenlooper and Romney and others to provide a long-term 
solution by reauthorizing these vital programs until 2031.
    My bill has significant support from more than 30 Colorado 
and Western stakeholder organizations, including Denver Water, 
Pueblo Water, both of Colorado's Indian tribes, the Ute Water 
Users Association, and more.
    I am thrilled to see the Bureau of Reclamation also provide 
testimony in strong support of my bill here today, and I urge 
quick passage of this critical bipartisan legislation through 
the Committee, the House, and into law.
    And, Mr. Chair, I yield. Thank you.

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mrs. Boebert. I now recognize Mr. 
Rutherford for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank 
you, Chairman Bentz and Ranking Member Huffman, for having this 
important hearing today. I appreciate the opportunity to come 
before you today to discuss my bill, the Red Snapper Act.
    I represent northeast Florida and over 30 miles of pristine 
coastline. And I can tell you northeast Florida's economy has 
been shaped by our coastal resources, and our active fishing 
community depends on access to our fisheries.
    Our fishing economy is made up of more than just the 
anglers that go out on the water. It is also the bait shops, 
the marinas, the gear and boat manufacturers, and retailers, 
restaurants, hotels, and many, many other downstream 
businesses. And the way we manage our fisheries affects all of 
these businesses.
    And I know this Committee is no stranger to fishery 
management challenges, especially when it comes to red snapper. 
As you know, red snapper is a very prized fish for both 
commercial and recreational anglers. And for the last 10 years, 
stakeholders in the South Atlantic have been successfully 
rebuilding the red snapper stock. According to the most recent 
stock assessment, Atlantic red snapper is more abundant today 
than anyone alive has ever seen.
    However, instead of celebrating this success, we are here 
because there have been draconian and punitive proposals made 
in managing the stock. And the record number of red snapper on 
the reefs are driving increased encounters, which then lead to 
increased discards. And these discards, that data is then 
driving the over-fishing assumptions, which has caused 
extremely short red snapper seasons, and frustrated many of our 
anglers.
    In fact, this year, despite the growing stock, the 
recreational red snapper season was 2 days, 2 days. And let me 
say this, that creates a dangerous situation when you have a 2-
day season and you have thousands of boats trying to go out at 
the same time. You wind up with fights at the dock, you wind up 
with everybody running out of gear. That creates a problem in 
itself.
    But I was lucky enough this year to be able to go out on 
one of those days, and we caught our limit in about 45 minutes. 
There were five of us on the boat, which meant we got to catch 
five, and took about 45 minutes. We spent twice as much time, 
Mr. Chairman, going to and from our spot than we actually did 
fishing.
    And while short seasons are frustrating, they are not even 
the most extreme management strategy that has been discussed in 
the South Atlantic, and this is why we are really here.
    Following the latest stock assessment, NOAA has proposed 
area and time closures of bottom fishing to reduce out-of-
season red snapper catches. Bottom closures would have severe 
and irreversible consequences. These closures threaten to 
devastate the very same anglers that have worked in good faith 
to rebuild the stock for the last 10 years. In fact, those 
reefs that those fish are on, our American sport fishermen are 
the ones who built those reefs. They weren't there before.
    Now, fortunately, after significant pushback from the 
fishing community, these closures were not included in the 
amendment to the Council ultimately passing. However, closures 
are still on the table as a long-term solution. That is why I 
am here.
    Over the last 4 years, Congress has appropriated, in a 
bipartisan fashion, $5 million for an independent study of red 
snapper stock in the South Atlantic.
    Moving straight to closures before we get the results from 
the South Atlantic Red Snapper Count defies common sense. If 
closures are implemented, northeast Florida would surely take 
the brunt of the impact.
    Mr. Chairman, all my bill says is don't close the bottoms 
until we get this count in, and it is used in the determination 
of the red snapper stock that is down there. If these closures 
are implemented, it is going to be very difficult in my 
district.
    The reefs off northeast Florida are home to a very large 
population of these red snapper. In fact, I have had divers 
tell me that the red snapper down there are so thick you can 
walk across their backs.
    Nobody wants to preserve the red snapper stock more than 
these anglers. Instead of punishing them with bottom closures, 
let's look at innovative management strategies like we have 
seen in the Gulf of Mexico, and continue to improve our data 
about this fish stock.
    I appreciate the Committee's attention to this important 
issue, and I look forward to continuing to work with you to 
balance the protection of our fisheries with the access to this 
important natural resource.
    Thank you for having me here today, and I yield back.

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Rutherford, and I want to thank 
the Members for their testimony. I will now introduce our 
second panel.
    Dr. Kelly Kryc, Deputy Assistant Administrator for 
International Fisheries with NOAA; and Mr. Stephen Guertin, 
Deputy Director for Program Management and Policy with the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service.
    As I know you know, but let me remind you, under Committee 
Rules, you must limit your oral statements to 5 minutes, but 
your entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
    To begin your testimony, please press the ``talk'' button 
on the microphone.
    We use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn 
green. When you have 1 minute remaining, the light will turn 
yellow. And at the end of 5 minutes, the light will turn red, 
and I will ask you to please complete your statement.
    I will also allow all witnesses to testify before Member 
questioning.
    I now recognize Dr. Kryc for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF KELLY KRYC, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR 
   INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC 
                 ADMINISTRATION, WASHINGTON, DC

    Dr. Kryc. Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Grijalva, and 
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify today. I am Kelly Kryc, and I serve as NOAA's Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for International Fisheries. In this role, 
I am responsible for representing U.S. interests in various 
multilateral and bilateral fisheries fora. Today, I am here to 
represent NOAA's views on three of the bills under 
consideration, and I look forward to any questions and the 
discussion that follows.
    I will first address H.R. 1792, the South Pacific Tuna Act 
of 2023. The South Pacific Tuna Treaty between the governments 
of the United States and several Pacific Island States has 
provided a solid foundation for a mutually beneficial strategic 
relationship in the region for more than three decades. It is 
viewed as a model of international and fishery cooperation, and 
has helped establish fisheries observer and data reporting 
requirements, as well as enforcement standards for the region's 
fisheries.
    NOAA supports H.R. 1792, which would amend the South 
Pacific Tuna Act of 1988 to reflect the amendments to the 
treaty agreed to in December 2016. These amendments provide 
greater flexibility and maintain access for U.S. fishing 
vessels operating in the region.
    The South Pacific Tuna Act of 2023 provides necessary 
changes to the existing law to allow NOAA to promulgate 
regulations that fully implement the amendments made to the 
treaty. NOAA appreciates the Committee's attention to this 
topic.
    Next, I will address H.R. 4587, the Red Snapper Act. Red 
snapper is one of the most popular fish species in the 
Southeast United States, as recognized by Congressman 
Rutherford. And NOAA remains committed to ensuring the 
successful implementation of the Red Snapper Management 
Program.
    The most recent stock assessment in 2021 indicated that 
South Atlantic red snapper are undergoing over-fishing, are 
over-fished, and are currently rebuilding. As noted in the 
bill, red snapper over-fishing is primarily caused by discard 
mortality associated with fishing snapper-grouper species 
during the red snapper season closure. Therefore, lowering the 
catch limits of red snapper alone without also addressing the 
discard mortality issue associated with the snapper-grouper 
fishery will not end over-fishing.
    While time area closures can be a tool to manage over-
fishing, at this time the South Atlantic Fishery Management 
Council is not recommending such an action. Therefore, it is 
NOAA's position that this legislation is unnecessary.
    In the interim, the Council and NOAA are looking at other 
actions to manage the multi-species snapper-grouper fishery in 
a more holistic manner, as well as testing innovative 
strategies to reduce discard mortality. We are happy to speak 
to the Committee further regarding ongoing science and 
management actions.
    Finally, regarding H.R. 4051, or the SHARKED Act, NOAA 
recognizes the concerns associated with increased reports of 
shark depredation. As you noted, Congressman, depredation is a 
complex topic, and solving its many causes may be outside the 
control of fisheries managers.
    Further, completely eliminating depredation is neither 
practicable nor feasible. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act, NOAA is responsible for 
ensuring that sharks are sustainably managed, both to prevent 
over-fishing of sharks, and also to rebuild any stocks that 
have been over-fished.
    As shark populations rebuild, and climate change impacts 
where sharks and their prey are located, shark depredation 
events will likely continue. To address these issues, NOAA has 
invested funding in a range of studies and research on 
depredation, including through our bycatch reduction 
engineering program, which are detailed more fully in our 2022 
report to Congress on this subject.
    We welcome the opportunity to work with Congress on H.R. 
4051 and these important issues. NOAA is proud to lead the 
world in conducting ocean science, serving the nation's coastal 
communities and industry, and ensuring responsible stewardship 
of our ocean and coastal resources.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify on these bills, 
and I look forward to your questions.

    [The prepared statement of Dr. Kryc follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kelly Kryc, Deputy Assistant Secretary, National 
      Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
              Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
                 on H.R. 1792, H.R. 4051, and H.R. 4587

    Chair Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. NOAA is 
responsible for the stewardship of the nation's living marine resources 
and their habitat. We provide vital services for the nation: 
sustainable and productive fisheries, safe sources of seafood, the 
recovery and conservation of protected species, and healthy 
ecosystems--all backed by sound science and an ecosystem-based approach 
to management. The resilience of our marine ecosystems and coastal 
communities depends on healthy marine species.
    We offer the following comments on the bills under consideration 
today and look forward to discussing our views with the Subcommittee.
H.R. 1792--South Pacific Tuna Act

    NOAA supports H.R. 1792, the South Pacific Tuna Act of 2023 (SPTA). 
This bill will update the existing South Pacific Tuna Act of 1988 with 
conforming edits to reflect the recent amendments to the South Pacific 
Tuna Treaty (the Treaty), a multilateral treaty between the governments 
of the United States and several Pacific Islands, which were agreed by 
the Parties in December 2016, and received advice and consent to 
ratification from the Senate in July 2022. The primary goal of the 
Treaty amendments is to provide greater flexibility for both U.S. 
vessels and the Pacific Island parties (PIPs) to negotiate levels of 
access for U.S. vessels to PIPs' waters, while maintaining a reasonably 
certain operating environment for U.S. vessels. The amendments to the 
SPTA will allow NOAA to efficiently implement annual access and fee 
agreements and new operational requirements, allowing the United States 
and its vessels operating under the Treaty to benefit. The amendments 
to the SPTA are necessary for the United States to ratify the amended 
Treaty.
    The Treaty, which entered into force in 1988, provides fishing 
access for U.S. purse seine vessels to the exclusive economic zones 
(EEZs) of 16 members of the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency 
(FFA)--Australia, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, 
Republic of Kiribati, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Republic of 
Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Republic of Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, 
Solomon Islands, Kingdom of Tonga, Tuvalu, and Republic of Vanuatu--and 
promotes broader cooperation between the parties and relevant 
stakeholders.
    The Treaty has provided a solid foundation for a mutually 
beneficial strategic and economic relationship between the United 
States and the PIPs for more than three decades. It is viewed as a 
model of international and fishery cooperation and has helped establish 
fisheries observer and data reporting requirements, as well as 
monitoring, control and surveillance standards for the region's 
fisheries, all of which are vital to deterring illegal, unreported, and 
unregulated fishing. It serves U.S. economic interests by providing 
predictable and advantageous access to the world's most lucrative tuna 
fishing grounds and also serves as an important vehicle for public and 
private-sector cooperation with the Pacific Islands region on issues 
ranging from maritime security to capacity building and economic 
assistance. Beyond its specific provisions, the Treaty has symbolic 
importance as a long-standing component of the political and economic 
relationship between the United States and Pacific Island countries.
    NOAA is responsible for implementing the Treaty, and, on behalf of 
the Secretary of Commerce, is responsible for issuing the domestic 
regulations needed to carry out the terms of the Treaty and the 
objectives of the SPTA. These amendments to the SPTA are necessary in 
order to allow NOAA to promulgate regulations to fully implement the 
amendments to the Treaty. Regulations issued under the SPTA are 
applicable to all U.S. purse seine vessels operating under the Treaty, 
and include requirements related to vessel licensing under the Treaty, 
reporting on fishing activities, carrying vessel observers, and 
operating transmitters used as part of the satellite-based vessel 
monitoring systems, and more.
    In order to continue its leadership role in regional fisheries 
conservation and management, it is important for NOAA to have a strong 
and productive U.S. purse seine fishery in the region. NOAA appreciates 
the Committee's attention to this topic.
H.R. 4587--Red Snapper Act

    NOAA would oppose legislation which removes one of the most common 
management tools that the Councils and NOAA use around the country to 
achieve Congressionally mandated objectives to end overfishing and 
rebuild stocks. This bill would provide that the Administrator of NOAA 
not issue an interim or final rule that includes an area closure in the 
South Atlantic for species managed under the Snapper-Grouper Fishery 
Management Plan until the South Atlantic Red Snapper Count Research 
Program \1\ (otherwise referred to as the South Atlantic Great Red 
Snapper Count) is complete and the data related to that study is 
integrated into the stock assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The South Atlantic Great Red Snapper Count is an effort 
financially supported by NOAA's National Sea Grant College program and 
overseen by the Sea Grant programs of Florida, Georgia, South Carolina 
and North Carolina with scientific oversight from NOAA Fisheries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Currently, the Council is not proposing, in its advisory capacity, 
that NOAA Fisheries develop a South Atlantic Red Snapper closed area. 
Were the Council to do so, it is unlikely that NOAA's regulatory 
process would conclude prior to the completion of the South Atlantic 
Great Red Snapper Count. As such, the legislation is likely 
unnecessary.
    A 2021 stock assessment indicated that South Atlantic red snapper 
are undergoing overfishing (too many fish being caught), are overfished 
(the stock size is too low), and are currently rebuilding. Red snapper 
overfishing is primarily caused by discard mortality incurred when the 
red snapper season is closed and fishermen are targeting snapper-
grouper species that co-occur with red snapper. Therefore, reducing the 
harvest of red snapper alone (i.e., lowering the catch limits) will 
have minimal impact toward ending overfishing. The vast majority of 
discard mortality for red snapper (99% of dead discards in numbers of 
fish from 2017-2019) occur in the recreational sector (private and for-
hire). In response to the stock assessment, the South Atlantic Fishery 
Management Council (Council) developed a regulatory amendment that, if 
implemented by NOAA, would reduce the catch levels and implement gear 
requirements for harvest of snapper-grouper species.
    The Council originally proposed analyzing time/area closures at 
their June 2022 meeting but ultimately did not consider time-area 
closures in their regulatory amendment. The Council approved this 
regulatory amendment for proposal to NOAA in the Council's advisory 
capacity at their March 2023 meeting. However, this amendment, if 
implemented, would not have ended overfishing, which is required by the 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act). Once NOAA receives the regulatory amendment from the 
Council, it will initiate an evaluation to determine if the amendment 
is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. 
If it is consistent with Federal law, NOAA will proceed with 
rulemaking.
    The South Atlantic Great Red Snapper Count will provide an estimate 
of abundance for the South Atlantic red snapper population and is 
expected to be available in 2025, at which time it will be incorporated 
into the upcoming stock assessment. Following this count, NOAA will 
perform its stock assessment between 2024 and 2026, and in 2027, it 
will operationalize the stock assessment by incorporating it into the 
science and management of the stock. Meanwhile, the Council is 
conducting a Management Strategy Evaluation of the snapper-grouper 
fishery to provide information to manage the multi-species snapper-
grouper fishery in a more holistic manner. The Council and NOAA are 
also considering Exempted Fishing Permitted projects to test innovative 
management strategies to reduce effort and dead discards of red snapper 
and other snapper-grouper species.
H.R. 4051--Supporting the Health of Aquatic Systems Through Research, 
        Knowledge, and Enhanced Dialogue (SHARKED) Act

    Regarding H.R. 4051, or the Supporting the Health of Aquatic 
systems through Research, Knowledge, and Enhanced Dialogue (SHARKED) 
Act, NOAA recognizes the concerns regarding shark depredation and are 
working to find ways to mitigate any impacts to the extent practicable. 
Depredation is a complex topic with multiple facets, including some 
that are beyond the control of fisheries managers. It is worth noting 
that sharks are not the only species that are involved in depredation 
events. For example, in the Gulf of Mexico, dolphins and large groupers 
are also common culprits of depredation, while in Alaska and on the 
West Coast, orcas and sperm whales often engage in depredation. NOAA 
has invested funding in a range of studies and research on depredation, 
including through our Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program. The 
results of some of these studies and the overarching need for research 
were outlined in the Report to Congress that we provided last year per 
the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2021. NOAA does not have resources to implement 
this bill should it become law.
    Eliminating depredation is neither practicable nor feasible. As 
required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act, NOAA has successfully rebuilt stocks and continues to work to 
prevent overfishing of and rebuild overfished shark stocks. As shark 
populations rebuild and climate impacts the location of sharks and 
prey, shark depredation events will likely continue. Given the 
complexities involved, NOAA aims to identify ways to mitigate the 
impact of depredation on fisheries and the fishing community. To do 
that, we need better data on the extent of depredation and the species 
involved (both those being depredated upon and those doing the 
depredating) and we need to continue investing in efforts to mitigate 
and/or deter interactions. We are working to include depredation in 
various reporting mechanisms used by commercial and recreational 
fishers and, as described above, are already investing in mitigation 
and deterrence efforts. We welcome the opportunity to work with 
Congress on H.R. 4051 and these important issues.
Conclusion

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

                                 ______
                                 

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

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

    Mr. Guertin. Good morning, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member 
Grijalva, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today on three bills regarding the 
management of black vultures, conservation of coastal habitats, 
and collaborative conservation in the New York-New Jersey 
Watershed.
    H.R. 1437 would authorize individual livestock producers to 
take black vultures without a depredation permit. We recognize 
that black vultures target livestock, especially animals that 
are newly born or weak, and these depredations can cause 
undesirable losses to agricultural producers. We work with 
USDA's Wildlife Services to manage vultures causing these 
impacts.
    Our partnership with USDA brings a wealth of experience and 
expertise to working with landowners on the best solution for 
depredation caused by black vultures, which are a protected 
species under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Non-lethal 
management can be particularly important in prime roosting 
habitat, where the species will repeatedly return over time. If 
non-lethal techniques are expected to prove ineffective, we can 
then issue a Federal depredation permit.
    In the past, these permits were handled on a case-by-case 
basis. However, beginning in 2017, we initiated a pilot program 
that allowed the Service to issue these Federal depredation 
permits to state agencies or farm bureaus, who then issue sub-
permits to individual producers. This program is now available 
to every state east of the Mississippi, across the range of the 
black vulture population.
    We want to emphasize this: for states participating in the 
program, requests for depredation sub-permits are well below 
maximum levels. We can issue a lot more take of black vultures. 
If there are challenges to getting these permits to producers, 
we are interested in working to address those challenges within 
the existing legal framework.
    However, we oppose H.R. 1437, as written, because entirely 
eliminating a permit impairs our ability to pursue first non-
lethal management measures, and in our view, annual reporting 
requirements are insufficient to provide up-to-date information 
to ensure takings are at a sustainable level.
    The Service has demonstrated a willingness to engage with 
Congress and the agriculture community to improve management of 
black vultures, and would welcome continued collaboration to 
ensure that ranchers and farmers have the flexibility they need 
to protect livestock from black vulture depredations while 
ensuring sustainable take.
    H.R. 2950 would codify the Service's coastal program and 
authorize $20 million in annual appropriations, increasing to 
$25 million by Fiscal Year 2028. We support this legislation, 
which would strengthen our ability to carry out this successful 
partnership program.
    Coastal Program is our premier voluntary, locally-based 
habitat conservation and restoration program. It provides 
technical and financial assistance to willing partners who are 
interested in conserving or restoring coastal habitat on public 
and private lands. We have field staff in 24 priority coastal 
areas, and they collaborate on projects with a wide variety of 
partners.
    Since it was established in 1985, the Coastal Program has 
collaborated with more than 8,200 partners to protect 2.3 
million acres of habitat, restore more than 600,000 acres of 
habitat, and restore 2,800 stream miles in coastal watersheds. 
The program leverages partner contributions at a remarkable 
five-to-one ratio or greater, amplifying its impact and making 
it a successful, efficient use of conservation funding. And 
codifying the program and authorizing appropriations would 
ensure the Coastal Program can continue to support 
collaborative coastal conservation projects that benefit 
wildlife and fisheries.
    And last, H.R. 2982 would establish a non-regulatory New 
York-New Jersey Watershed Restoration Program, directing the 
Service to consult with the state and partners in the Watershed 
to develop a watershed-wide restoration strategy.
    Further, it would authorize funding for the Service to 
provide competitive matching grants and technical assistance to 
support restoration activities.
    We support this legislation, but we want to note a general 
concern about the cumulative impact of regional grant projects 
on our ability to prioritize conservation resources at a 
national level. We have a long history of collaborative 
conservation work in the New York-New Jersey watershed, 
including at three National Wildlife Refuges, two Urban 
Wildlife Partnerships and work through our Partners for Fish 
and Wildlife and Highlands Conservation Act programs. Formal 
authorization for a unified watershed restoration Framework 
would echo similar programs we have in the Delaware River Basin 
and Chesapeake Watershed.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. We 
appreciate the Subcommittee's interest in migratory bird 
management, coastal restoration, and watershed conservation. I 
would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Guertin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stephen Guertin, Deputy Director for Policy, U.S. 
         Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior
                 on H.R. 1437, H.R. 2950, and H.R. 2982

Introduction

    Good morning, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and Members 
of the Subcommittee. I am Stephen Guertin, Deputy Director for Policy 
for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) within the Department 
of the Interior (Department). I appreciate the opportunity to testify 
before you today on three bills regarding the management of migratory 
birds, collaborative conservation of coastal resources and habitats, 
and the protection of our nation's watersheds.
    Consistent with the principles underlying the Biden-Harris 
Administration's America the Beautiful initiative, the Service takes a 
collaborative and inclusive approach to conservation. The mission of 
the Service is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance 
fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit 
of the American people. The collaborative nature of our conservation 
mission is more important than ever as we address complex conservation 
challenges that cut across jurisdictions and boundaries. For instance, 
protecting migratory birds and other wide-ranging species necessitates 
close coordination of conservation and management actions with local, 
state, and international partners. Similarly, protecting and restoring 
sensitive wildlife habitats like salt marshes requires collaboration 
with the wide array of partners and communities who value and rely on 
these important coastal ecosystems.
    The Service achieves strong conservation outcomes by working at 
large scales and implementing programs hand-in-hand with private 
landowners, state agencies, Tribes, non-governmental organizations, and 
other partners. Our Migratory Birds Program works together with farmers 
and ranchers to develop new initiatives that protect migratory birds 
and support livelihoods. The Service's Coastal Program has worked with 
thousands of partners since 1985 to successfully protect and restore 
priority habitats in coastal watersheds across the country for the 
benefit of wildlife and communities. Additionally, the Service's 
Science Applications program identifies shared conservation priorities 
and delivers the scientific information and tools that partnerships 
need to achieve conservation goals across the landscape. These are just 
a few of many collaborative conservation examples that characterize the 
Service's work.
    Several of the bills under consideration today seek to expand or 
modify how the Service works with others in achieving our conservation 
mission. We offer the following comments on three bills under 
consideration today and look forward to discussing our views with the 
Subcommittee.
H.R. 1437, Black Vulture Relief Act of 2023

    H.R. 1437 would authorize livestock producers and their employees 
to take black vultures (Coragyps atratus) with a reasonable belief the 
birds will cause death, injury, or destruction of livestock. 
Individuals who take a black vulture would be required to report take 
on an annual basis to the Service.
    Black vultures are large, scavenging birds that are present 
throughout the mid-Atlantic and southeastern United States, as well as 
less frequently in the Southwest. Black vultures migrate from summer 
habitat in the northeast to wintering habitat in Central and South 
America and are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).
    Under the MBTA, the Service is responsible for implementing the 
four bilateral treaties entered into with Canada, Mexico, Japan, and 
Russia to conserve covered species and protect birds from unauthorized 
take. The Service is the lead federal agency for the conservation of 
migratory birds and the enforcement of the MBTA, which includes close 
to 1,100 species. The Service conducts surveys and monitoring to 
determine the status of populations, coordinates public and private 
partnerships, provides grants through programs that conserve millions 
of acres of habitat such as the North American Wetlands Conservation 
Act and Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act, and administers 
the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp, also known as the 
Federal Duck Stamp. The Service maintains regulations for the take and 
research of migratory birds, including depredation and scientific 
collection, and makes permits available to be issued as appropriate.
    Increasing human populations, development, and land use changes, 
coupled with recovering bird populations have resulted in increased 
black vulture-human conflicts. Black vultures are known to target 
livestock, especially animals that are newly born or weak, which can 
cause losses for livestock producers. The Service works cooperatively 
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service, Wildlife Services (Wildlife Services) to 
cooperatively manage depredating black vultures. The Service's 
preferred method of control is to use non-lethal techniques such as 
bothering the bird (i.e. hazing) to get it to leave and find a new 
place to roost. If non-lethal techniques are ineffective, the Service 
can issue a federal depredation permit with documentation from Wildlife 
Services outlining the damage being caused by black vultures and 
including recommendations to alleviate the problem.
    Previously, these depredation permits were handled on a case-by-
case basis. In 2015, based on feedback from the agriculture industry 
and landowners, the Service began working with the Farm Bureaus of 
Kentucky and Tennessee on a pilot program to issue a depredation permit 
to the State Farm Bureaus, which could then more efficiently issue sub-
permits to individual producers. During the duration of the pilot 
program from 2017 to 2019, depredation permits for a total of 3,950 
birds were authorized. As the original pilot program concluded in 2019, 
the Service was authorizing the average annual take of 32,167 vultures 
nationally, which is significantly under the annual maximum take the 
population could sustain. The amount of that authorized take actually 
utilized is well below the allowable limit that was set by the Service, 
based on an environmental assessment and population data, to ensure 
sustainable levels of take. The pilot was so successful that in 2021, 
the Service extended the program across the full range of black vulture 
populations, and it is now available to every State east of the 
Mississippi River. In States that choose to participate in the program, 
the Service can partner with Farm Bureaus, State Departments of 
Agriculture, and other entities that are issued a state-wide permit. 
These entities can then offer sub-permits to individual livestock 
producers and centralize the required reporting. Individuals who suffer 
property damage of any other kind or who live in States that choose not 
to participate in the program must seek individual permits from the 
Service.
    The Service understands that depredating black vultures continue to 
present challenges for livestock producers, and we are committed to 
improving black vulture management. However, the Service is opposed to 
H.R. 1437. As currently written, the bill would remove important 
accountability measures and reporting that ensure the sustainable 
management of black vulture populations and timely monitoring of take. 
The annual reporting requirement in the bill is not sufficient for the 
Service to monitor black vulture populations. Knowing when and where 
black vultures are taken is important to ensuring total take remains 
under the annual maximum take levels set by the Service. H.R. 1437 only 
addresses one reason for black vulture take in livestock depredation, 
so having accurate and timely accountability is important to manage the 
permitting for producers in conjunction with take permits issued for 
aviation safety and property damage. Additionally, by authorizing take 
for individual producers without a permit, H.R. 1437 would also limit 
the opportunity for the Service to recommend other mitigation methods, 
which may be more effective in addressing and removing depredating 
vultures. This is particularly important in cases where lethal take is 
proving ineffective due to the species' continual return to prime 
roosting habitat. Lastly, in States participating in the program, 
requests for black vulture take have remained below maximum allowable 
levels. As such, the Service believes there is opportunity for 
producers in need of permits or increased levels of take to protect 
their resources under the current program.
    The Service would welcome the opportunity to work with the bill 
sponsor and the Subcommittee to learn more about the concerns of 
constituents and work together to ensure producers have assistance in 
preventing and mitigating black vulture depredations, as well as access 
to sufficient permits when appropriate, while ensuring that the proper 
data is collected for implementation and enforcement of the MBTA.
H.R. 2950, Coastal Habitat Conservation Act of 2023

    H.R. 2950 would codify the Service's Coastal Program and authorize 
appropriations for the program that would begin at $20 million for 
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 and increase over time to $25 million for FY 
2028. The Service supports H.R. 2950, which would strengthen our 
authorities to continue this successful program.
    The Service's Coastal Program is a successful, voluntary, locally 
based habitat conservation and restoration program. The program 
provides technical and financial assistance to willing partners, 
including State and Tribal agencies, coastal communities, conservation 
organizations, and other federal partners to protect, restore, and 
enhance priority habitats that benefit fish, wildlife, and people on 
public and private lands. The program is a catalyst that leverages 
considerable non-federal participation and funding for coastal 
conservation.
    Coastal Program projects build coastal resilience to the impacts of 
climate change by improving the health of coastal ecosystems. They 
support the conservation of federal trust species and have contributed 
to the recovery and downlisting of 15 species listed under the 
Endangered Species Act. The program also supports natural and nature-
based infrastructure by restoring saltmarsh and streams in coastal 
watersheds, coastal barrier islands, seagrass beds, and mangrove 
forests.
    These projects provide lasting benefits to coastal communities by 
employing contractors and stimulating local economies, restoring 
coastal wetlands that support commercial and recreational fisheries, 
improving water quality, and increasing opportunities for hunting, 
fishing, and wildlife observation.
    Since 1985, the Coastal Program has collaborated with more than 
8,200 partners to protect more than 2.3 million acres of habitat and 
restore more than 600,000 acres of habitat and 2,800 stream miles in 
coastal watersheds. Through these partnerships, the program leverages 
partner contributions at a ratio of 5:1 or greater, significantly 
increasing the positive impact and reach of the program.
    The Service supports H.R. 2950, which would codify the Coastal 
Program's approach to voluntary, collaborative conservation--a proven 
and effective strategy to achieve shared conservation goals. 
Authorizing this program would reaffirm that protecting and restoring 
coastal habitats is an important role for the Service. It would ensure 
that the program is secure and continues to be a versatile tool in the 
Service's conservation toolkit. In addition, H.R. 2950 would establish 
a strong benchmark for annual appropriations and increase Congressional 
engagement in and oversight of the program, ensuring that the Coastal 
Program has the necessary capacity to serve priority coastal areas.
H.R. 2982, New York-New Jersey Watershed Protection Act

    The Service supports H.R. 2982, which would direct the Secretary of 
the Interior (Secretary), working through the Director of the Service, 
to establish a non-regulatory New York-New Jersey Watershed Restoration 
Program (Program). In carrying out the Program, the Service would 
consult with the States of New York and New Jersey, other Federal 
agencies, and partners in the New York-New Jersey Watershed (Watershed) 
to identify, prioritize, and implement restoration and protection 
efforts and adopt a Watershed-wide strategy.
    H.R. 2982 would also establish the New York-New Jersey Watershed 
Restoration Grant Program, a voluntary program that would provide 
competitive matching grants and technical assistance to eligible 
entities to carry out coordinated restoration and protection activities 
in the Watershed. The Secretary would be authorized to increase the 
Federal cost share of an activity for certain communities and to enter 
into an agreement for grant management. H.R. 2982 would authorize $20 
million annually for these programs for FY 2024 through 2029.
    The Service has a long history of working collaboratively with 
partners to conserve lands and waters in the Watershed for the benefit 
of people and wildlife. The Service engages a diverse public in fish 
and wildlife-associated recreational and educational activities at the 
Watershed's three national wildlife refuges. Two Urban Wildlife 
Partnerships in the region foster connections between residents--
especially youth--and natural areas. Our Partners for Fish and Wildlife 
Program provides technical assistance to private landowners in the area 
who are interested in conserving and restoring habitat on their lands. 
In addition, the Service and the U.S. Forest Service work together 
through the Highlands Conservation Act to help the Highland States of 
Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey, local governments, 
nonprofits, and farm and forest landowners conserve the land and 
resources of the Highland region, which includes the Watershed and 
waters downstream.
    Collaborative, landscape-scale conservation efforts like the one 
proposed by this bill are a cornerstone of the Service's mission and 
are among the most effective approaches to tackling 21st century 
environmental challenges like climate change, habitat degradation, and 
biodiversity loss. In our experience administering similar programs, 
such as the Delaware River Basin Restoration Program (DRBRP) and 
Chesapeake Watershed Investments for Landscape Defense (WILD), we see 
how partner-driven, non-regulatory, collaborative efforts result in 
significant conservation gains. Through the DRBRP, the Service has 
partnered with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to award $40.4 
million to 123 projects in the Delaware River Basin, which generated 
$59.7 million in matching funds for a total conservation impact of 
$100.1 million. We believe H.R. 2982's proposed program and targeted 
investment would deliver similar benefits. Additionally, by providing 
the Secretary authority to increase the federal share of restoration 
and protection costs, we believe this legislation would enable the 
Program to reduce the burden and increase accessibility for small, 
rural, and disadvantaged communities previously unable to access 
similar funding.
    Although the Service supports this bill, and we agree that it would 
be a significant benefit to facilitating partnerships, and designing 
and implementing conservation and restoration projects in an important 
watershed, we have some concerns. The Service is concerned about the 
cumulative effect of this bill and other similar regional grant 
projects, like those referenced above, on the Service's overall budget 
and ability to prioritize conservation of resources for the Nation. The 
Service would welcome the opportunity to discuss this concern with the 
sponsor and Subcommittee. We would also welcome the opportunity to work 
with the sponsor and Subcommittee to ensure such a program is 
adequately supported to carry out authorized functions. This grant 
program places an emphasis on technical assistance provided by the 
Service, which would help increase public access to the Program, 
improve application quality, and ensure that funded projects have the 
resources to be successful. In addition, the Service would work to 
build a coalition of partners in the Watershed and form foundational 
relationships that advance the responsibilities and priorities of the 
Program. For these reasons, we would welcome the opportunity to work 
with Congress to ensure appropriate flexibility to cover administrative 
costs and ensure that the New York-New Jersey Watershed Restoration 
Program complements ongoing work in the Watershed and other areas.
Conclusion
    We appreciate the Subcommittee's interest in community-based, 
collaborative conservation and in migratory bird and coastal 
conservation. We look forward to working with you on these and future 
legislative efforts.

                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Guertin. I thank the witnesses 
for their testimony. I will now recognize Members for 5 minutes 
each for questions.
    Mr. Wittman, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

    Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Kryc, I would like to get your perspective on where we 
are with stock assessments for sharks. I know they all fall 
into different categories: large coastals, pelagics. Can you 
give us a current status of where those stock assessments are, 
when the latest stock assessment was done for large coastals, 
for pelagics?
    There has recently been a cessation or a ban on catching 
mako sharks, specifically longfin and shortfin makos. Can you 
give us an update on where we are with current stock 
assessments?
    Dr. Kryc. Thank you, Congressman, for the question.
    NOAA manages approximately 63 shark stocks. I don't have 
the specific numbers regarding where the stock assessments are 
for each of those. I can speak a little bit to the mako issue 
as a resolution or a measure that was agreed to in an 
international forum in the ICCAT fora that bans retention of 
shortfin mako in the North Atlantic.
    Mr. Wittman. I will let you get to that question, but I 
want to drill down a little bit further on stock assessments, 
because stock assessments really get to the earlier regulatory 
action taken on essentially stopping any sort of viable catch 
of large coastals. And the idea was that those stocks needed to 
recover. And because sharks have long gestation times, the 
thought was, well, we have to have much longer periods when 
these closures exist.
    The challenge with that is you also have to have stock 
assessments to determine where the recovery is, and we have not 
had a recent stock assessment. I would love for you to get that 
information to the Committee. I think that is incredibly 
important.
    One thing, too, I asked you to comment on is we know that 
sharks are different than other fish. Sharks are livebearers. 
They don't spawn, so it is not like you have to have eggs that 
are out there to be fertilized by sperm, and you have lots of 
little larvae, and they swim around, you have all kinds of 
plankton eaters that eat them so you have to have millions of 
eggs in order to get a handful of fish. Sharks are livebearers, 
which means their survivability of their young is much, much 
greater. So, I was going to ask several things.
    Has NMFS looked at fecundity of sharks in relation to 
mortality, and have you looked at survival rates based on them 
being livebearers, and how the stocks are managed, and where 
the stocks are today currently?
    And if you haven't done a recent stock assessment, 
shouldn't that inform where we are today in looking at 
population recoveries?
    And I would like to hear your perspective on ICCAT's 
determination and stoppage of catch of shortfin mako here in 
the Atlantic.
    Dr. Kryc. Thank you for that question, Congressman. Again, 
I don't have the specifics on the status of the stock 
assessments for all of the species, but would be very happy to 
get you more information.
    Mr. Wittman. Can you speak to any of the science behind how 
those stock assessments are made, the nature of how sharks 
reproduce, their fecundity, biomass as it relates to spawning, 
biomass versus biomass that is reaching spawning age?
    I mean, all those things are dynamics about how management 
should happen under Magnuson-Stevens. I would expect that you 
would know at least how the Agency has looked at that and where 
you are today, assessing how you are managing that species, 
which is a statutory requirement under Magnuson-Stevens for the 
Agency.
    Dr. Kryc. Thank you. I appreciate your question. And the 
Agency is committed to using the best available----
    Mr. Wittman. I understand. Listen, I don't question the 
Agency's commitment.
    What I want from you is an answer as to the science. You 
say that you are an agency based on science. Based on the 
statutes and Magnuson-Stevens, I would hope that you could 
speak a little bit to that because the mechanics of how these 
decisions are made and what decisions are made are critical to 
not only the stock itself, but also to the current situation we 
find ourselves in.
    Dr. Kryc. I do appreciate your question. I am not familiar 
with the specifics of how the stock assessments are conducted 
with respect to the shark species, but we can get that 
information to you.
    Mr. Wittman. Can you speak then to the shortfin mako ban?
    Dr. Kryc. I can speak to the shortfin mako ban. There has 
been an issue with the stock recovery associated with shortfin 
mako, and the United States has taken extraordinary efforts 
over the past many years to reduce our mortality of the species 
by implementing circle hooks, and improving all sorts of our 
fisheries management.
    Unfortunately, based on the efforts by the United States 
alone, the global stock status of shortfin mako in the Atlantic 
continued to suffer. Therefore, actions were taken 
internationally to ensure that the stock could rebuild.
    Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Wittman.
    Mrs. Radewagen, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Talofa, good 
morning. Thank you for testifying today.
    Dr. Kryc, can you describe the challenges NOAA has had 
since the treaty has been renegotiated but not implemented in 
the U.S. code?
    Dr. Kryc. Thank you, Congresswoman Radewagen, and talofa. 
Thank you for your question.
    I would like to first thank you and Representative Case for 
your leadership in championing this legislation. NOAA sees it 
as imperative for our ability to implement the amendments to 
the treaty. This treaty provides access to the most lucrative 
tuna fishing grounds in the world for the U.S. fleet, and is a 
model for cooperation between the United States and the Pacific 
Island States.
    In the absence of finalizing the implementing legislation, 
NOAA has been challenged in being able to fully implement the 
amendments to the favorable outcome of our industry. And while 
we are operating under a Memorandum of Understanding, 
finalizing this legislation will enable us to fully implement 
the amendments, again, to the benefit of our industry. Thank 
you.
    Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the 
balance of my time.

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mrs. Radewagen. The Chair recognizes 
Mr. Case for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am going to address the 
tuna treaty bill, as well, Dr. Kryc. I am very happy to co-
sponsor this with my colleague, Mrs. Radewagen.
    Just to follow up on her questions, first of all, I totally 
support the bill, obviously. I am a co-sponsor, a co-introducer 
of it. We want this treaty to succeed. We want the regulations 
to adjust to the treaty. We are all trying to do the same 
thing, which is to preserve the American purse seine fleet, and 
allow them to compete fairly out there in the Pacific.
    But as you take a look at the catch statistics over the 
last couple of years, it does show a decline in catch in both 
the high seas and also in the EEZs themselves, which I guess is 
puzzling to me, given the treaty. I think I can explain the 
decline somewhat on the basis that we have seen the fleet 
itself decline fairly precipitously in the last 3 years. In 
fact, if you look at Mr. Gibbons-Fly's testimony, I think he 
has it down from 34 to 14 vessels in the last 3 years. So, 
that, obviously, would have something to do with your catch.
    But besides just the decline in the fleet, which is 
alarming, are there further issues with our access to other 
countries' EEZs that are being solved by this treaty and by 
this particular legislation, and/or that we have not covered 
yet that we need to go back and cover?
    Do we have full access? His testimony is to the effect that 
especially the American Samoa fleet still faces some unusual 
and administrative barriers in other countries' EEZs, which I 
thought the treaty was trying to solve for. So, I am a little 
puzzled by the decline in catch, even though we have, 
obviously, seen the fleet decline.
    Dr. Kryc. Thank you, Congressman Case, for your question. I 
appreciate your concern for our U.S. fleet operating in the 
Western Central Pacific, and acknowledge the change in our 
fleet over the past several years.
    With respect to the decline in catch in the most recent 
past, I am not quite sure which time range you are speaking to. 
But, of course, we also had the confounding impacts of the 
global pandemic which caused some fishing declines globally.
    Mr. Case. Yes, my stats are from you guys through 2022.
    Dr. Kryc. OK. We acknowledge, yes, the change in the fleet 
from 40 at its maximum to 13 at this time.
    The treaty ensures access for our fleet to the Exclusive 
Economic Zones of the Pacific Island parties, as negotiated, 
which expands the opportunities for our fleet to operate both 
in our own EEZs and also on the high seas. And all of those 
provide the opportunity to maximize opportunity for the fleet, 
and maximize the landings that then come to American Samoa and 
support the cannery there.
    Mr. Case. OK. I guess I will follow up with Mr. Gibbons-
Fly. My question is to follow up on the comment that, even with 
the treaty, we are still facing barriers to entry in the EEZs 
of our partner countries. So, that is of concern.
    And then, correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, 
one of the areas that is the most important in this bill and in 
the treaty renegotiations themselves is that we have been 
subject to a license regime on the high seas, as opposed to 
other countries, which, obviously, disadvantages us. Are we 
going to be on the same level playing field after this bill, as 
any other country on the high seas themselves?
    Dr. Kryc. Yes, Congressman, and thank you for raising that 
important issue. This is one of the primary reasons to move 
this legislation is to ensure that access to the high seas for 
our fleet.
    Mr. Case. OK. And then finally, clearly, whether we have 
treaties or not, we are all facing IUU fishing everywhere, 
especially by some of the other countries in the Pacific Rim. 
What does the treaty say, if anything, directly or indirectly, 
about curbing IUU fishing?
    Are there understandings between us and our partner 
countries that we will cooperate in terms of a more forceful 
action on IUU fishing in the EEZs of these countries?
    Dr. Kryc. I will keep this brief. The United States has a 
highly managed fleet, and we raise the standards of everyone 
around us when we are operating. And because we are so well 
managed, we are able to use that to help raise those standards 
in international negotiations, and that helps to address the 
IUU fishing issue.
    Mr. Case. OK. Thank you very much.

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Rutherford 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to tell 
you, our anglers back home, their main lament right now is, 
NOAA closed our seasons because there weren't enough fish. Now, 
they are closing our season because there are too many fish 
being caught and discarded.
    So, one of the things that I would like to go to, Doctor, 
is in your own report on stock assessment, page 5, it says this 
is all about, and this goes back to Mr. Wittman's point, 
scientific uncertainty. In fact, the data uncertainty that is 
highlighted here is the exact reason that we are restricting 
red snapper, and that is commercial discards and recreational 
discards. That is the data uncertainty in your biomass 
determination.
    And then, of course, population dynamic uncertainty under 
sources of recruitment and environmental changes.
    In light of all that, I want to ask you this question. Does 
my bill stop the implementation of anything in the Council's 
recommendation to stop NOAA's perceived over-fishing? Is there 
anything in my bill that stops you from going forward with what 
the Council already passed?
    Dr. Kryc. Thank you for that question, Congressman. NOAA 
recognizes the issues associated with the discards.
    Mr. Rutherford. I only have 5 minutes. Is there anything in 
my bill that stops the Council from going forward with the 
recommendations to stop over-fishing that you have already 
implemented?
    Dr. Kryc. NOAA will be taking the recommendations from the 
Council meeting, and looking at those to make sure that they 
are consistent with Magnuson-Stevens, and then moving forward.
    Mr. Rutherford. The answer is no. There is nothing in my 
bill that will stop you from moving forward with those Council 
recommendations.
    Now, let me ask you, you have not recommended closing the 
bottom. Closures are not the recommendation right now, is that 
correct?
    Dr. Kryc. That is correct. The Council has not 
recommended----
    Mr. Rutherford. OK, but can you tell me why?
    Dr. Kryc. I think that they took the best scientific advice 
and at this time decided not to proceed with a time area 
closure as part of the management tools available to them.
    Mr. Rutherford. OK, looking at your biomass calculations 
and the uncertainty that is built into that that you recognize, 
it is in your own report on page 5, do you think that NOAA's 
abundance data is reliable?
    Dr. Kryc. Thank you, Congressman. I am not familiar with 
the exact report you are referring to, so I can't address that 
specific question at this time.
    Mr. Rutherford. OK. Well, I will show it to you.
    Let me ask you this. Do you think that NOAA's data on 
recreational discards is reliable?
    Dr. Kryc. Thank you, Congressman. I think this is an issue 
that we continue to need more information on, and I think the--
--
    Mr. Rutherford. I am going to stop you there because you 
just said exactly what this bill is all about, getting you more 
data, getting you good data, reliable data so that when you 
make these assumptions about biomass, we can be much closer to 
the truth.
    And, Mr. Chairman, that is what this bill is all about. It 
simply says don't close the bottom until this Great Red Snapper 
Count is completed, which we have funded in a very bipartisan 
way, $5 million over the last 4 years to have this third-party, 
independent study. All it says is don't close the bottom until 
we get that information in, and you can then add that into your 
data.
    Look, I believe if you have good data you can make better 
decisions. And that is all I want to do is help you make better 
decisions with good data, not the data that you recognize is 
not data uncertainty, commercial discards, recreational 
discards, population dynamic uncertainty. You have a lot of 
uncertainties built into your models, and I understand that. It 
is not an easy issue. That is why this count is so important.
    And I think some other things can be done, as well, but 
that is why this bill needs to pass. And I thank you for your 
time.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Rutherford. The Chair recognizes 
Mr. Carl for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Real quickly, is it Guertin? Did I pronounce that 
correctly?
    Mr. Guertin. Guertin, sir.
    Mr. Carl. Guertin, OK. Well, I am from the South, so we 
butcher everything, so I am told.
    On the black vulture, I have talked to a lot of ranchers, 
especially out West obviously, we don't have them in south 
Alabama that I am familiar with. But ranchers lose a lot of 
their livestock calving to these vultures. Has any thought been 
given to reimbursing these ranchers for their losses?
    Mr. Guertin. Thank you for your question, Congressman. At 
this point, the legislation does not address any type of 
depredation compensation program. That is certainly something 
the author of the bill could look at, and there are similar 
programs for wolf depredation and other things that have been 
enacted into law.
    Mr. Carl. These ranchers make a living every year from a 
breeding stock that keeps moving up. So, I would suggest we 
look at something like that. If we are going to tell them they 
can't protect their livestock, we ought to at least try to 
help.
    Ms. Kryc, the Great Red Snapper Count that was done in the 
Gulf, do you know what year that was actually done?
    Dr. Kryc. In the Gulf? Yes, that just concluded. And the 
results of the Gulf Great Red Snapper Count were integrated 
into management decisions this year.
    Mr. Carl. OK. Did they pull a net on that count, or did 
they actually count bottom fish?
    Dr. Kryc. It was a very comprehensive study. I can't speak 
to the specific methodology there, but it did reveal a great 
deal about the status of red snapper in the Gulf.
    Mr. Carl. OK. Let me share a little bit of my sarcasm with 
you. I come from a private business background, and we don't 
make money unless we can figure out ways to save money and 
expand our market. Government doesn't work that way. Government 
doesn't care about cheap. They don't care about making a 
profit. They focus on trying to expand their apartments. So, 
when these studies come up and you ask for another $5 million 
to do a study, in my mind I get sarcastic and want to push back 
on it, because you have created another problem that may or may 
not exist.
    How did we use the snapper count that we did 4 or 5 years 
ago? Why did we not use it in the first 2 years? Because it was 
finished in the first 2 years, but we drug it out for 3 more 
years and we didn't use it. Why?
    Dr. Kryc. Thank you. I think this is a really beautiful 
case of how the science informed a management decision to 
result in an increase in the quota. The Council made the 
decision to extend the timeline of how to use that data based 
on how they were analyzing that data, and the need to then make 
decisions on that----
    Mr. Carl. We issued a second set of money for that, 
correct?
    Dr. Kryc. That I will have to get back to you on.
    Mr. Carl. I believe we did. To my knowledge, these tests 
were ran by pulling nets over the top of reefs. These are reef 
fish that are not going to be floating around, getting exposed 
very much.
    When the University of South Alabama did their test, the 
Alabama Department of Wildlife put in their own software. I 
know Louisiana--Garret is here--Louisiana has their own. We did 
our own count, too, and we came up with much, much more, a 
higher count, a better count than what you have. But the two 
have come together, and yet you have cut back on the fish. So, 
we are proving we have more. You are using your numbers. You 
think we would match somewhere in between. But in reality, you 
cut back even further.
    Tell me the law that tells you that you have the right to 
tell people what they can catch and not catch?
    Dr. Kryc. Thank you, Congressman, for that question and for 
recognizing the state's role in managing red snapper.
    The difference in methodologies is being calibrated and 
will be reflected in decisions regarding the quota later this 
year. And that does recognize, as you said, the difference 
between----
    Mr. Carl. I am sorry, I am running out of time. But we 
impose the shark, you can't catch a snapper now for the sharks 
taking them off your hooks. That is the problem we are having 
in the Gulf all of a sudden.
    So, I would propose that NOAA let nature be nature, and 
let--hey, Sheriff, move your head, move your head.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Carl. I would propose that NOAA actually invite the 
fishermen and the people that do it on a daily basis versus 
just your professionals that do these counts from systems that 
are outdated and long gone. Thank you for your service, though.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Carl. The Chair recognizes Mr. 
Neguse for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. Thank 
you for holding this hearing.
    And I know we are all thinking of our friend, Ranking 
Member Huffman, who is dealing with an illness, but I am 
certainly glad to have the opportunity to talk today about an 
issue that I have been working on for several years, and that 
is the Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basin recovery 
programs.
    These programs are a model of successful partnership and 
collaboration across agencies, states, and with both Federal 
and non-Federal partners in my state of Colorado, in addition 
to Utah, Wyoming, and New Mexico. They work to recover and 
protect four species of endangered and threatened fish while 
also providing Endangered Species Act compliance for 2,500 
water projects. They are a model for successful Endangered 
Species Act conservation efforts using the best available 
science.
    And, in fact, two of these species have even been 
downlisted to threatened status as a result of the work 
completed by the programs. It is why I have been a champion on 
this effort for some time. In the last Congress, the 117th 
Congress, I introduced bipartisan legislation along with 
Senator John Hickenlooper in the U.S. Senate to reauthorize and 
continue Federal funding for this these critical programs.
    And these critical programs in particular, that legislation 
was marked up, it was heard in this Committee, it was marked up 
by the Full Committee, sent to the House Floor, and ultimately 
passed the House, the Senate, signed by President Biden.
    We have reintroduced legislation that would again 
reauthorize this critical program for a longer period of time, 
and also addresses the funding needs. Because the reality is we 
have heard from a variety of stakeholders at the local level 
that more funding is needed to ensure that this program 
operates successfully. There are, of course, both Federal 
appropriations and non-Federal contributions, but the Federal 
appropriations piece is crucial.
    And what I would say, Mr. Chairman, is I hope that he will 
consider marking up my legislation to reauthorize this program, 
the companion legislation to Senator Hickenlooper and Senator 
Romney's legislation in the U.S. Senate, because, absent that 
increased funding level, I fear that this program will not 
operate as successfully as it has in the past.
    Now, I will note with some irony that, unfortunately, I 
think some of the folks who are championing the particular 
measure that we are considering today, which is emulated after 
the bill, as I said, that I introduced in the last Congress and 
that I have also introduced in this Congress, are the same 
individuals fighting to pursue CRAs on the ESA, literally, as 
we speak, as we consider those measures on the Floor and, I 
might add, also advocating for deep cuts to the Department of 
the Interior's appropriation bill for this next fiscal year. It 
is ironic and, in my view, hypocritical to seek to reauthorize 
a program because, of course, that is what we are talking about 
in this instance, while simultaneously seeking to defund it on 
the appropriations side.
    If you care about reauthorizing this critical program, the 
Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basin recovery programs, and 
I certainly care and, on a bipartisan basis, many of my 
constituents care, then you ought to also care about ensuring 
that the appropriation is there, as well. And I would implore 
my colleagues who support this program to support the 
appropriation behind it, as well.
    And I think it is a fair question for any citizen of my 
great state of Colorado, and certainly of the press to ask of 
any Member who purports to support reauthorization of the Upper 
Colorado and San Juan River Recovery Programs if they are 
willing to stand up and support the corresponding 
appropriation. And I suspect they will find that, while I 
certainly support that, that many others do not.
    In any event, I am grateful for, of course, the 
Administration witnesses that are here today. I have no 
questions for either of you. I appreciate your service to the 
country, and I know we have a number of local stakeholders who 
have made the journey to Washington, DC, and I am grateful for 
them coming here, to our nation's capital, to testify on this 
important program.
    Again, I would urge the Chairman to consider a hearing on 
the legislation that I have introduced with Senator 
Hickenlooper. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back 
the balance of my time.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Neguse.
    Mr. Graves, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you all 
having this hearing today, and I want to thank the witnesses 
for being here.
    Dr. Kryc, I want to thank you for responding to Mr. Carl's 
questions related to the Great Red Snapper Count. And I 
appreciate you, I guess, respecting the integrity of that 
analysis. I think that I agree with Congressman Carl in that 
that was a very thorough exercise that was done by some 
impressive academics that really went to great lengths to 
ensure the accuracy of the analysis. So, I do appreciate you 
respecting that.
    I do have concerns, similar to Congressman Carl, in that 
there seems to be disparity between the findings of the Great 
Red Snapper Count and the allocation that National Marine 
Fisheries has allowed for the Gulf States. And it is 
frustrating because we are in a scenario where they effectively 
said there are triple the red snapper, yet we had, as I recall, 
about a 10 percent increase in allocation, which I am not 
saying we need to triple the allocation, but it seems like 10 
percent is significantly below what it should be.
    Look, that analysis was the most thorough analysis that was 
ever done. And Congressman Carl correctly noted that the states 
are investing millions of dollars in improved data collection, 
trying to get this right because we want to sustainably manage 
these fisheries. I am just wondering if you could shed any 
light on the disparity between the findings of the Great Red 
Snapper Count and the increase in allocation that was allowed 
for fishers to harvest.
    Dr. Kryc. Thank you, Congressman Graves. Yes, the Great Red 
Snapper Count in the Gulf did reveal higher numbers, but it 
also revealed that the productivity of the red snapper is less. 
So, there was a dichotomy.
    And the most recent data coming out of the collections is 
bearing the science true in that the increase that was approved 
is probably the limit at which it should be to continue 
maintaining a sustainable fishery there. The science will 
continue to inform those decisions and management practices 
with the goal of ultimately increasing that over time.
    Mr. Graves. I am struggling with this a little bit. So, 
population was triple. Unless red snapper have discovered birth 
control technology, I am having a tough time understanding how 
you could have that many more fish, but then productivity would 
be that much lower. That seems, again, contrary to what common 
sense would indicate. Could you shed any light on that?
    Dr. Kryc. Thank you. My understanding is that it is to do 
with the age range of the fish. So, until they reach full 
maturity, they are not able to be as productive.
    Mr. Graves. All right. If you could provide some additional 
information on that, I sure would appreciate it.
    Again, it just seems contrary to common sense there. I 
understand the age issue, but I am not sure that that is what 
the Great Red Snapper Count found in regard to the additional 
fish.
    Another issue I want to quickly bring up is I appreciate 
Congressman Wittman's leadership efforts on the depredation 
issue related to sharks. I want to ask a quick question. 
Doesn't Magnuson-Stevens, isn't it designed to ensure the 
sustainability of fisheries?
    I mean, that is sort of the objective. That is a 
fundamental of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, is that accurate?
    Dr. Kryc. Congressman, thank you, yes, based on the best 
available science.
    Mr. Graves. Is there anything in Congressman Wittman's 
legislation that would undermine that fundamental objective of 
Magnuson?
    Dr. Kryc. Congressman, the Agency continues to pursue the 
best available science to address the issues associated with 
shark depredation. So, what we see between the bill that 
Congressman Wittman introduced is just a great deal of overlap 
with the work that we are already doing.
    Mr. Graves. I want to highlight that: overlap that you are 
already doing, rather than, as some allegations were raised 
today, that his bill would result in killing a bunch of sharks 
and undermine the survivability of the species or 
sustainability, because that allegation was lodged earlier. And 
I just want to be crystal clear that is not correct, that the 
fundamentals of Magnuson would still apply. Congressman 
Wittman's bill does not undermine that. What it does is it is 
designed to ensure greater ecosystem management.
    Last thing on this, Mr. Chairman, I just want to make note 
that one of the most frustrating things in the world is when I 
bring a fish up, and I know it is going to be much bigger than 
the fish that Congressman Carl caught, but the bottom half of 
the fish is missing because the shark got it. It is still 
bigger than Jerry's fish, but can you just imagine how much 
bigger it would be if I had the whole fish, as opposed to that 
shark taking the bottom off?
    And I know that you are with me on this, so you don't need 
to respond. But I did want to just highlight that, and this 
issue does need to be addressed.
    I yield back.

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Graves.
    Mr. Magaziner, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Magaziner. Thank you, Chairman. I come from Rhode 
Island, and for generations Rhode Island has been known for our 
coastline, our abundant fishing, and our strong maritime 
economy. Now, climate change is impacting our state's natural 
habitats, leaving our coasts more vulnerable to natural 
disasters, and contributing to significant biodiversity loss 
that is impacting our commercial fishing industry.
    As sea levels rise and beaches erode, we risk losing even 
more valuable habitats, homes, and businesses, and people's 
livelihoods. So, we have to redouble our efforts to preserve 
and restore coastal habitats so that future generations can 
enjoy the same benefits that Rhode Islanders have for 
centuries. The Fish and Wildlife Service has been doing this 
work, and I thank you for it, through the Coastal Program, a 
unique partnership between Federal officials and local 
communities to voluntarily restore protected habitats.
    The Fish and Wildlife Service, in just the last 12 years, 
has conducted more than 4,900 conservation projects, including 
51 in Rhode Island, my home state, and restored more than 
600,000 acres of habitat across the country, including 417 
acres in Rhode Island. This has supported the full recovery and 
downlisting of at least 15 species nationwide, and prevented 
at-risk species that call Rhode Island home, such as the New 
England cottontail and the saltmarsh sparrow, from becoming 
endangered.
    The program's success is in large part thanks to the Fish 
and Wildlife Service's ability to work closely with local 
partners on the ground. In my district, for every $1 put in by 
the Coastal Program, the Fish and Wildlife Service attracted an 
additional $73 in investment from local partners. I will say 
that again, because you don't hear that kind of a ratio very 
often: $1 put in for the Fish and Wildlife Service draws an 
additional $73 in investments from local partners.
    The Coastal Program's approach is evident on the ground in 
its collaboration with local partners. Fish and Wildlife 
personnel have worked closely with organizations like Save the 
Bay, the Town of Charlestown, the town of Westerly, and others 
to restore the Ninigret saltmarsh. Salt marshes, by the way, 
shield and protect coastal areas from storm surges, and 70 
percent of all commercial fish depend on them for at least part 
of their lives.
    Climate change and habitat restoration are complex, long-
term challenges, so codifying the Coastal Program will ensure 
that the Fish and Wildlife Service can provide sustained and 
proactive attention to these issues, and help protect coastal 
ecosystems for decades to come.
    Mr. Guertin, can you just talk a little bit about the 
flexibilities in the Coastal Program that allow Fish and 
Wildlife Service to meet the specific needs of each community? 
Because, obviously, a community in Rhode Island might have very 
different needs than in Maine, or in Oregon, or in Michigan. 
So, how do you work with local partners to tailor the approach 
in an appropriate way?
    Mr. Guertin. Thank you for your question, Congressman.
    Sure, the Coastal Program is one of our flagship programs. 
It promotes a vision for collaborative, non-regulatory, 
voluntary partnership work throughout the coastal regions of 
the United States. We partner with state fish and game 
agencies, tribal partners, private landowners, other entities. 
You mentioned the incredible leveraging opportunities we can 
put on the ground with that, and certainly in Rhode Island that 
incredible work at Ninigret saltmarsh important to the 
saltmarsh sparrow is a very key species for us in that ecotype 
up there.
    But this is all about developing a shared vision for the 
landscape, bringing the partners together, leveraging each 
other's resources, and using the best available science to help 
us tackle sea level rise, provide additional access for 
recreation and commercial fishers, and do a better job of 
sustaining that coastline for future generations.
    Mr. Magaziner. Thank you. And one other aspect of the 
program that I want to make sure we highlight here and that we 
support is, you are not just providing financial assistance, 
you are also providing technical support and capacity building 
for these local partners on the ground so that they can 
continue to maintain this work going forward. Can you talk a 
little bit more about how the technical assistance side of the 
program works?
    Mr. Guertin. Sure. We can provide the geospatial mapping 
tools. We can provide biologists to help partners develop some 
of these projects. We can provide the horsepower to get those 
projects permitted and stood up and implemented on the ground. 
And we can provide a lot of training and technical assistance 
to state employees, private landowners, and others.
    And then we can also tap into the wealth of expertise from 
the other Federal and state agencies to bring capacity in as 
needed.
    Mr. Magaziner. Thank you. Terrific program, and I hope that 
we will all continue to support it on a bipartisan basis.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Magaziner.
    Mr. Rose, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rose. Thank you, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member 
Huffman, and thank you for the opportunity to address the 
Committee. I have a few statements I want to make about H.R. 
1437, the Black Vulture Relief Act of 2023.
    I was proud to introduce the Black Vulture Relief Act of 
2023 with my friend from Florida, Representative Darren Soto, 
and I applaud the Subcommittee for attaching my bill to today's 
hearing.
    This bill would allow farmers and ranchers to lethally take 
black vultures without a sub-permit. This is a common-sense 
measure that responds to robust black vulture population 
numbers and rising rates of depredation on livestock.
    Because the black vulture is currently listed under the 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Federal permit is required to 
engage in lethal take of the bird. Permits are issued by the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to states, and states issue sub-
permits to producers. Sub-permits allow for three takes, with 
the option to go up to five in some states. This is not 
adequate, given the sheer numbers of threats that producers 
face from this abundant species.
    This bill would remove the requirement for a sub-permit, 
allowing farmers and ranchers to take black vultures as needed. 
This bill preserves the requirement for reporting of incidental 
take on the back end, and allowing wildlife agencies to 
continue to monitor the species numbers.
    I am pleased to report that numerous groups are supporting 
this legislation, including the Tennessee Farm Bureau 
Federation, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the 
Tennessee Cattlemen's Association, the Florida Cattlemen's 
Association, and the Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association.
    I would particularly like to draw the Committee's attention 
to a letter I received from the Tennessee Farm Bureau in 
support of H.R. 1437. In the letter, the Tennessee Farm Bureau 
Federation stated that, ``It should be a fundamental right for 
farmers to protect their livestock when threatened by predatory 
actions of black vultures, and we believe this legislation 
takes a vital step in the right direction.'' I wholeheartedly 
agree that it should be a right for farmers to be able to 
protect their livestock when threatened by black vultures with 
a requirement for reporting, as my bill requires.
    I have heard numerous horror stories from my constituents 
about how black vultures injure and kill pregnant cows and 
their calves in the most barbaric and gruesome ways. Indeed, I 
have experienced that on my own beef cow-calf operation.
    In addition to the unnecessary and cruel suffering 
livestock endure at the hands of black vultures, there is also 
a major financial impact to producers who suffer from black 
vulture depredation. My bill helps to stem those financial 
losses.
    I also want to address some of the concerns of the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service. I have reviewed the written 
testimony of Mr. Stephen Guertin, the Deputy Director for 
Policy at the Fish and Wildlife Service, and I was profoundly 
disappointed to learn that Fish and Wildlife is opposed to this 
bipartisan legislation. While I disagree with much of Mr. 
Guertin's written testimony, I want to focus on a couple of 
specific points I particularly disagree with.
    The Fish and Wildlife Service argues that annual reporting 
requirement is not sufficient. I have heard time and time again 
about increasing numbers of black vultures, and I firmly 
believe that a once-a-year reporting requirement is sufficient 
for monitoring population management while also balancing 
against overly burdensome reporting requirements for producers.
    Additionally, Mr. Guertin's written testimony states that, 
``By authorizing take for individual producers without a 
permit, H.R. 1437 would also limit the opportunity for the 
Service to recommend other mitigation methods which may be more 
effective in addressing and removing depredating vultures.''
    I want to be clear on this point. There is absolutely 
nothing in my bill that limits the ability for the Fish and 
Wildlife Service to make recommendations regarding other 
mitigation methods for those affected by black vultures.
    I will, however, note that Mr. Guertin's testimony states 
that the Fish and Wildlife Service is open to working with me 
on this issue. I appreciate this offer, and look forward to 
engaging with Fish and Wildlife on this important issue.
    In closing, I greatly appreciate this Committee's 
leadership on the issue of black vulture depredation, and I 
yield back the balance of the time.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. The Chair recognizes himself for 5 
minutes.
    Dr. Kryc, I am most interested in the approach NOAA uses on 
a bill such as H.R. 4051, because it is an appointment of a 
task force to look into an issue that you indicated overlaps 
substantially with NOAA's jurisdiction.
    So, I guess my first question would be, why do you think 
that this task force is necessary? Doesn't it reflect a 
shortcoming on NOAA's part?
    And if not, then why are you not objecting strenuously to 
the bill if it is not necessary?
    Dr. Kryc. Chairman Bentz, thank you for your question. I 
appreciate that.
    As I think is stated in our testimony, we are willing to 
work with the Committee and the Members on this bill. We did 
just want to register our concerns that we, through a number of 
mechanisms, are taking a deep look at depredation, and just see 
a number of overlaps, and wanted to make sure that those were 
addressed.
    Mr. Bentz. Let's go back to your phrase, the ``deep look.'' 
Tell me what that means. Define it for me.
    Dr. Kryc. Yes. We are looking through a number of different 
mechanisms, including the bycatch reduction engineering 
program. We are using genetic sources of scientific 
information, looking at new engineering technologies, a broad 
spectrum of ways to understand depredation.
    To date, we don't have enough information about who is 
eating who, who is participating in this to make solid 
management decisions that would allow a reduction in 
depredation. What we do know is that for solutions that are 
effective in the short term, that the animals are capable of 
adapting and acclimatizing and adjusting to those technologies.
    So, it remains confounding, and requires a great deal more 
research to understand how to minimize and mitigate the impacts 
of depredation.
    Mr. Bentz. Right, and I have seen that your agency is 
challenged with any number of difficult scientific issues. And 
this is evident in my discussions with your agency regarding 
studies being done in the Pacific concerning the survival or 
not of salmon species that come down various rivers on the West 
Coast.
    And my question to you is, based on what we are looking at 
when it comes to these two shark populations, first of all, how 
do you decide how you are going to focus on these problems?
    And then secondly, how do you tell the interested parties, 
such as those here today, when you are going to finish these 
studies?
    Or is this a kind of an ongoing, forever sort of a study 
that never quite gets done because of all kinds of explanations 
such as the ones you just provided?
    In other words, when will we have an answer from you as to 
the sharks?
    Also, and this is off today's agenda, but I would like to 
have the same answers regarding the Pacific. But today, we are 
talking about sharks. So, when will we have an answer?
    Dr. Kryc. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate that 
question. As a scientist myself, I will share that often the 
information we gain as we look into things introduces new 
questions that then we continue to follow.
    Mr. Bentz. And that process could go on for a very long 
time. So, just, please, 1 year, 2 years, 10 years? When?
    Dr. Kryc. For a specific depredation?
    Mr. Bentz. Yes,
    Dr. Kryc. I cannot give you a specific time frame for when 
we would have a definitive answer on that.
    Mr. Bentz. I am not surprised, but thank you for being here 
today, and I appreciate your work. It is a challenging job.
    Mr. Guertin, how much is the cost of a permit for the 
rancher if they want to take advantage of your program to kill 
these black vultures?
    Mr. Guertin. It was $100 before we did the sub-permits to 
the entities in each state. And then there is a various cost 
structure in each state, as well.
    Mr. Bentz. It has been suggested that your system doesn't 
work well, that the computer program is very, very difficult to 
use. Is that true?
    Mr. Guertin. I admit, sir, it has been clunky at times. We 
are investing a lot in our new e-permit system, which is 
streamlining a lot of that.
    But in any case, we are giving these block permits to each 
entity in the state. They are then administering the actual 
allocation of the take to the individual producers. So, that 
would be perhaps more of a question for us to work on with our 
state partners.

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. My time is expired.
    Ms. Porter, you recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Porter. Thank you.
    Dr. Kryc, can you share why it is important for Fishery 
Management Councils and the National Marine Fisheries Service 
to base regulations and management decisions on the best 
available science, not delaying actions for years until new 
data becomes available, which to me, seems an awful lot like an 
effort to just delay new regulations?
    Dr. Kryc. Thank you, Congresswoman.
    I think the tenant of using the best available science for 
decision-making has ensured that the Magnuson-Stevens Act has 
achieved many of the objectives it set forth to do and achieve 
in rebuilding stocks and assuring the sustainable management of 
our fisheries, which has made our fishery sector successful and 
something that we can maintain in the long term.
    Ms. Porter. When new data, Dr. Kryc, from the Great Red 
Snapper Count is available, will that be used in NOAA's 
fisheries management decisions?
    Dr. Kryc. Thank you, Congresswoman. Yes, the intent for the 
South Atlantic Great Red Snapper Count is to use the 
information, similarly as was done in the Gulf, to inform 
management decisions regarding the red snapper in the South 
Atlantic.
    Ms. Porter. OK, moving on to the SHARKED Act, this bill 
duplicates an existing report that NOAA already submitted to 
Congress. It also adds a section on shark depredation research 
projects into the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act without authorizing additional funding. This 
means funding for stock assessments, bycatch regulation, 
habitat conservation will be redirected toward the niche issue 
of shark depredation.
    Is it realistic to expect NOAA to complete these research 
projects without additional funding?
    Dr. Kryc. Thank you, Congresswoman. It is true that, should 
this legislation move forward, NOAA does not currently have the 
resources available to implement it. And as I have stated, 
since we are already doing so much on depredation at this time, 
we just see a lot of overlap. So, we have the funding we need 
for the studies we are currently doing, so thank you for 
recognizing----
    Ms. Porter. So, we don't need this bill. It will be 
difficult to actually deliver on because of the funding 
restrictions.
    So, House Republicans made the rules, and now it is up to 
you to figure out how to balance constituent needs with your 
own bad politics.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Ms. Porter.
    Mr. Lawler, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Lawler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and esteemed members of 
the Committee. I am glad to be here with you today to advocate 
for the passage of the New York-New Jersey Watershed Protection 
Act, a vital piece of legislation that aims to safeguard one of 
the most densely populated and yet habitually under-funded 
watersheds in the United States.
    As one of a number of representatives from New York and New 
Jersey signed onto this legislation, I can say firsthand that 
the New York-New Jersey watershed faces a myriad of challenges, 
from legacy pollutants caused by old manufacturing plants to 
ongoing and escalating flood risks in river villages and towns 
to a lack of public access for many, our Hudson Valley 
watershed and, indeed, the entire New York and New Jersey 
watershed needs attention and assistance.
    In the 17th district, replicating the successful model 
already deployed across Federal watersheds nationwide, we could 
see significant improvement of water quality for communities 
all along the Hudson River, from Piermont and Tarrytown to 
Peekskill, Cold Spring, and Haverstraw, among others.
    The New York-New Jersey Watershed Protection Act would 
streamline and finance local restoration initiatives in my 
district and all along the Hudson, with the goal of improving 
water quality, preserving wildlife and their habitats, 
augmenting public access, and bolstering recreational 
industries along the Hudson and other waterways.
    Last year, we saw this same piece of legislation pass the 
House as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. This 
year, with the support of a bipartisan coalition of 14 co-
sponsors, all 4 New York and New Jersey Senators, and over 50 
local organizations, we aim to push it across the finish line 
through the Senate and to the President's desk.
    This Act is not just about protecting a watershed. It is 
about securing our future, improving our communities' 
resilience, and preserving our ecosystems for generations to 
come. It is a testament to our commitment to environmental 
stewardship, and I look forward to its passage.
    Mr. Guertin, in your role at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, could you provide insights into how your agency's 
expertise and experience in managing Federal watersheds will 
contribute to the success of the restoration program proposed 
in the New York-New Jersey Watershed Protection Act?
    Mr. Guertin. Thank you for your question, Congressman. We 
are a Wildlife and Fisheries Management Agency, so the 
expertise we would bring would revolve around many of the 
wildlife and fisheries species that depend on the watershed.
    We do a lot of habitat restoration work, a lot of outdoor 
recreation planning. We can support a very vibrant outdoor 
recreation economy with that kind of work. Hunters and angling 
opportunities. We do environmental education, and we have a lot 
of programs already operating in the watershed, including three 
National Wildlife Refuge units, two urban partnerships. Our 
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program works with private 
landowners, as well as the Hudson Highlands Conservation Act we 
implement with the Forest Service.
    So, we would focus on outdoor recreation, environmental 
education, habitat restoration. A lot of the work around our 
trust species, striped bass, sturgeon, waterfowl, and other 
animals like that.
    Thank you for your question, sir.
    Mr. Lawler. As you know, in the Hudson we have had a lot of 
legacy pollutants. What work can you do to help remediate 
existing pollutants while preventing further contamination to 
our wildlife?
    Mr. Guertin. Our mission would revolve around habitat 
restoration projects, watersheds, headwater streams. This 
watershed extends from the Mohawk River up into the 
Adirondacks. It reaches everything from saltwater fish to brook 
trout in the headwaters. So, we would do habitat restoration 
work, all with a focus of healthy, sustaining populations of 
wildlife and fisheries resources.
    Mr. Lawler. With a budget allocation of about $20 million 
annually for the watershed restoration, how would you be able 
to use those funds effectively?
    Mr. Guertin. If enacted and appropriated, Congressman, we 
would use this funding to bring in additional private land 
biologists to work on voluntary conservation purposes. We could 
leverage our ability with large landowners, other agencies, the 
state to bring in technical assistance. We can do mapping and 
modeling for key species' needs.
    We can also do a lot of our work that we have done in 
similar watersheds, like the Delaware and Chesapeake Bay, to 
connect with urban populations, environmental education. We can 
do a lot of outdoor recreation opportunities for kids, things 
like that, and a lot of just partnership building with the 
people in the watershed who are interested in this conservation 
project.
    Mr. Lawler. I appreciate it. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, 
for allowing me to waive on, and I encourage all my colleagues 
to support this important legislation.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Lawler, and I want to thank the 
witnesses for their valuable testimony and the Members for 
their questions.
    Members may have some additional questions for the 
witnesses, and I ask that you respond to these in writing. This 
panel is now dismissed. Thank you.
    And I will recognize our third panel as they move up.
    I think we are ready to start. Let me recognize our third 
panel: Mr. Charlie Besher, Chair of the Property Rights and 
Environmental Management Committee with the National 
Cattlemen's Beef Association in Patton, Missouri; Mr. Steve 
Wolff, General Manager of the Southwestern Water Conservation 
District in Durango, Colorado; Mr. Gene Shawcroft, General 
Manager of the Central Utah Water Conservancy District in Orem, 
Utah; Mr. William Gibbons-Fly, Executive Director of the 
American Tuna Boat Association in San Diego, California; Ms. 
Genevieve Genest, Donor Relations Manager for the Galveston Bay 
Foundation in Kemah, Texas; Mr. Seth Atkinson, Attorney for the 
Quillback Consulting in Santa Cruz, California; Mr. Jack 
Graham, Captain of Afishianado Charters in Kill Devil Hills, 
North Carolina; Ms. Jessica McCawley, Division Director of the 
Division of Marine Fisheries Management with the Florida Fish 
and Wildlife Conservation Commission in Tallahassee, Florida.
    Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules, 
they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but their 
entire statement will appear in the record.
    To begin your testimony, please press the ``talk'' button, 
and please move close to your microphone. In this hearing room 
it is hard to hear if you are more than about 3 inches from it.
    We use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn 
green. When you have 1 minute remaining, the light will turn 
yellow. And at the end of 5 minutes, the light will turn red, 
and I will ask you to please complete your statement.
    I will allow all witnesses to testify before Member 
questioning.
    With that I now recognize Mr. Besher for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF CHARLIE BESHER, PROPERTY RIGHTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL 
     MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE CHAIR, NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S BEEF 
                 ASSOCIATION, PATTON, MISSOURI

    Mr. Besher. Thank you, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member 
Huffman, and members of the Subcommittee for inviting me to 
speak today on the impact of the black-headed vultures on 
family-owned cattle operations like mine.
    My name is Charlie Besher. My wife Donna and I are a cow-
calf operator based in Bollinger County, Missouri. We raise 
registered Hereford cattle in the foothills of the Ozarks. We 
have grown our operation over the years with a priority on soil 
health, water quality, rotational grazing through sound 
environmental stewardship. I want to be able to give my 
grandchildren what my grandpa left to me.
    A half a century ago, black-headed vultures were declining 
due to decades of trapping and exposures to DDT. They were 
federally listed and take was prohibited. Today, the bird has 
rebounded and become an abundant species across the country. 
Their population has steadily grown by 3 percent every year 
from 1966 to 2019. The black-headed vultures globally breeding 
population is 190 million strong, prompting partners in flight 
to downgrade the species to low conservation concern.
    As their population grows, so does the species' harmful 
impact on cattle production. Death loss of cattle due to birds 
has been confirmed in 18 states across the South and the 
Midwest. From 2015 to 2019, requests to the Fish and Wildlife 
Service for depredation permits to help control the black-
headed buzzards have increased by 26 percent. Last year alone, 
USDA APHIS was called upon to disperse 84,000 black-headed 
vultures and euthanize 13,000 across 22 states. Because 
producers are not permitted to take enough of the birds on 
their own, the Agency is forced to deal with this, and with a 
lack of staff to do so at that scale.
    Black-headed vultures are opportunistic predators. They 
target calves, particularly when they are partially emerged 
from the birth canal. Even for the most experienced farmer, 
these kills are a very gruesome way to see an animal go, 
especially a baby calf. The birds take an average of 3\1/2\ 
hours to actually kill their prey. They kill a calf by first 
puncturing and consuming its soft tissues, the eyeballs and the 
anus. Next, they often start on the rear flank, akin to the 
groin of a human, in order to get easy access to the calves 
organs.
    Not only is this gruesome, but it is also financially 
costly to producers. There is an immediate financial loss of 
the calf's death, and ongoing financial loss due to stress, 
reduced weight gain, and injuries to the mother cow.
    The Black Vulture Relief Act is bipartisan and soon to be 
bicameral. It does not amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 
Rather, it is a stand-alone bill that will allow producers to 
lethally take birds without a sub-permit when there is an 
immediate threat to livestock.
    That is an important note. We are not seeking to eradicate 
the species. They play a vulnerable role in the ecosystem, but 
they are over-populated. And where this is a threat of calf 
loss, we need to be able to act.
    Permits are issued through Fish and Wildlife Services to 
states. States, in turn, issue sub-permits to producers. Sub-
permits only allow for three takes a year, with the option to 
go up to five in select states. Producers are regularly seeing 
these birds descend in flocks of as many as 50. Taking three 
birds one time per year is not efficient to deter depredation.
    The bill preserves the requirement for reporting of take to 
allow wildlife officials to continue to monitor the strength of 
the population. Even in good years, this is a business of daily 
challenges and slim margins.
    The majority of NCBA members run family-owned operations 
with a herd size of 100 or fewer. For them, one persistent 
issue like the black-headed vultures can make or break the 
bottom line.
    Congress can address this without threatening the long-term 
viability of the species. There is no longer any need for such 
strict protections for these birds. That makes about as much 
sense as threatening rats as endangered animals in Washington, 
DC.
    I urge you to pass the Black Vulture Relief Act of 2023, 
and I thank you for your time this morning. I look forward to 
answering your questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Besher follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Charlie Besher, Property Rights & Environmental 
   Management Committee Chair, National Cattlemen's Beef Association
                              on H.R. 1437

    Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and Members of the 
Subcommittee. On behalf of America's cattle producers, thank you for 
inviting me to speak today on the impact that Black vulture predation 
is having on family-owned operations like my own.
    My name is Charlie Besher. My wife Donna and I are cow-calf 
producers based in Bollinger County, Missouri, in the southeast corner 
of the state. We raise registered Hereford cattle and seven grandkids 
in the foothills of the Ozarks. I bought my first parcel of land at the 
age of 24, and I have been working to grow the operation ever since, 
with a prioritization on soil health, water quality, and rotational 
grazing.
    In addition to producing high-quality beef for our nation's food 
supply chain, I am proud to promote environmental stewardship within 
the industry at both the state and national level. I currently serve as 
Chair of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) committee on 
property rights & environmental management. I am also honored to serve 
of President of the Missouri Forage and Grasslands Council, Secretary 
of the Missouri Cattlemen's Association, and Vice Chair of the National 
Grazing Lands Coalition. In recent years, I have also been active with 
the U.S. Roundtable for Sustainable Beef.
    I am testifying today on behalf of NCBA, the trusted leader and 
definitive voice of the U.S. cattle and beef industry. Initiated in 
1898, NCBA is the American cattle industry's oldest and largest 
national trade association. In addition to our nearly 26,000 direct 
members, NCBA represents 44 state cattle associations with collective 
memberships numbering about 178,000 producers. It is important to note 
that well over 90 percent of those members are, like myself, family-
owned businesses involved in the cow-calf, stocker/backgrounder, and 
feeding sectors of the supply chain. The majority of NCBA members have 
a herd size of 100 head or fewer. Each of our members has a voice in 
our organization's century-old policymaking process, and it is from the 
grassroots resolutions and policies resulting from this process that 
NCBA takes positions on legislation.
    An integral part of responsible stewardship of our working lands, 
farms, and ranches is cultivating and maintaining the habitat to 
support a diverse range of wildlife species. More than 93 percent of 
the land in Missouri is privately owned, so by necessity, landowners 
like cattle producers play a pivotal role in the success of species 
conservation.\1\ In our state, cattle producers have participated in 
numerous voluntary programs to safeguard habitat and actively manage 
populations of elk, black bears, white-tailed deer, purple martins, 
bald and golden eagles, and freshwater species like the pallid sturgeon 
and paddlefish. On our own operation, we worked closely with Quail 
Forever to establish native warm season grass, to the benefit of our 
land and the birds. These kinds of collaborations are not unusual; in 
everything we do to improve our operation, we also consider the 
benefits for wildlife as a factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Hunting on Private Land. Missouri Department of Conservation. 
Accessed July 21, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Missouri ranchers--like tens of thousands of other cattle producers 
across the country--are not opposed to sound, science-drive wildlife 
conservation. On the contrary, we are deeply invested in passing on 
healthy, resilient, and balanced ecosystems to the next generation. 
These are the grasslands and forests where we live, work, and raise our 
families each day; we have no interest in eliminating the abundant 
wildlife that is part of what makes our way of life so special. Because 
we are so close to the land and so invested in its stewardship, we are 
often some of the first people to raise the alarm when some aspect of 
Mother Nature is out of balance. That is the alarm I want to raise with 
the Subcommittee today.
    Half a century ago, Black vultures were a species of concern in the 
United States due to decades of lethal take, trapping, and exposure to 
the eggshell-thinning effects of DDT. The species was listed under the 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and has been federally protected from take 
ever since.\2\ However, since the 1970s, the bird has rebounded and 
become a strong, abundant species across the country and indeed, across 
North America. Black vulture population numbers have grown steadily by 
approximately 3.4 percent every year from 1966 to 2019.\3\ The Black 
vulture's global breeding population now numbers approximately 190 
million strong, and the multinational conservation organization 
Partners in Flight has rated the species a 4 out of 20 on their 
Continental Concern Score, indicating that they are of low conservation 
concern.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ The Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits the take (defined as 
killing, capturing, selling, trading, or transport) of listed species 
without prior authorization by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    \3\ The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 
1966-2019. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. Accessed July 21, 
2023.
    \4\ Avian Conservation Assessment Database Scores. Partners in 
Flight. Accessed July 21, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As their population grows, so does the species' harmful impact on 
cattle producers. From 2015-2019, requests to the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (USFWS) for depredation permits to help control Black 
vultures increased by 26 percent.\5\ Depredation by the species on 
cattle has been confirmed in 18 states, with attacks in other areas 
likely going unrecorded.\6\ As far as the frequency of attacks, this 
varies from state to state. In some areas, only 15 percent of producers 
may experience Black vulture depredation. In the most heavily impacted 
states, it can be much higher. For example, in Florida alone, more than 
33 percent of all producers experience calf loss due to Black vulture 
depredation each year.\7\ When you recall the average herd size of NCBA 
membership is 100 head or fewer and the average herd size for all 
cattle producers nationwide is even smaller, that constitutes a 
significant portion. While we do not have extensive records of 
frequency of attacks in every state across the Southeast and Midwest 
regions--where Black vultures are most abundant--we can infer that 
their impact is growing due to the increasing number of permits 
requested of USFWS and the growing calls for assistance from the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service's (APHIS) Wildlife Services division. According to Wildlife 
Services, the arm of USDA tasked with assisting cattle producers and 
other industries with reducing human-wildlife conflict, the number of 
Black vulture attacks on cattle and calves increased by nearly 25 
percent from 2020 to 2022.\8\ In 2022 alone, Wildlife Services was 
called upon to disperse 84,020 Black vultures and euthanize 13,195 
across 22 states. Just last week, on my own operation, we discovered a 
nest in our barn and at least one individual--but when we called USDA 
for assistance, they were unable to come for another three days, and 
when they arrived, they elected not to take the bird.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Black vulture conflict and management in the United States: 
Damage trends, management overview, and research needs. USDA-APHIS, 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Accessed July 21, 2023.
    \6\ Spatial risk modeling of cattle depredation by black vultures 
in the midwestern United States. Journal of Wildlife Management. 
Accessed July 21, 2023.
    \7\ Vulture-Cattle Interactions: A Survey of Florida Ranchers. 
USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services. Accessed July 21, 2023.
    \8\ Program Data Report G. USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services. Accessed 
July 21, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Black vultures are opportunistic predators. They primarily attack 
and feed on calves--particularly during parturition--because they are 
weak, and their mothers are incapacitated and unable to defend 
themselves during and immediately after giving birth. We are surrounded 
by nature and by predator-prey relationships on the farm but even 
still, the predation habits of Black vultures still stand out as 
unusually harrowing. The birds take an average of 3.5 hours from start 
of an attack to death of their prey.\9\ They kill a calf by first 
puncturing and consuming its softest tissues; the eyeballs, the anus, 
and the rear flank (akin to the groin of a human) that, when gouged, 
gives the birds easy access to the calf's organs. Again--we are not 
naive to the realities of nature around us. But even for the most 
experienced farmer or rancher, these kills are a very gruesome way to 
see an animal go, especially when it's a baby that you have long 
awaited and invested in its health. Not only is Black vulture 
depredation gruesome, but it is also financially costly to cattle 
producers in a variety of ways. Each kill represents an immediate 
financial loss due to livestock death; ongoing financial loss due to 
stress, reduced weight gain, and/or injuries to mother cows; and 
persistent disruption to operations due to livestock's hesitancy to 
graze forage in pastures that are habitually frequented by Black 
vultures. In a Florida study, researchers found that each instance of 
Black vulture depredation cost the producer an average of $2,000.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Black vulture conflict and management in the United States: 
Damage trends, management overview, and research needs. USDA-APHIS, 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Accessed July 21, 2023.
    \10\ Vulture-Cattle Interactions: A Survey of Florida Ranchers. 
USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services. Accessed July 21, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The bipartisan ``Black Vulture Relief Act of 2023'' would address 
this growing challenge by allowing farmers and ranchers to lethally 
take Black vultures without first acquiring a sub-permit. Due to the 
bird's status under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, a federal permit is 
required to engage in lethal take of the bird. Permits are issued by 
USFWS to the states, and states in turn issue sub-permits to producers. 
Sub-permits only allow for three takes a year, with the option to go up 
to five in select states. In my home state of Missouri, we are seeing 
these birds descend on calving pastures in flocks are 40 to 50. Taking 
three birds, one time per year, is not sufficient to deter depredation. 
This legislation would remove the requirement for a sub-permit, 
allowing farmers and ranchers to take Black vultures as needed, in the 
moment, when the threat to livestock is greatest. The bill preserves 
the requirement for reporting of take on the back end, consolidating 
this information into a once-yearly report to the appropriate USFWS 
Regional Office. This will allow USFWS and state wildlife officials to 
continue to monitor the Black vulture population and uphold responsible 
stewardship of the species.
    Even in years of strong rainfall and strong markets, ranching is a 
business of daily adversity and slim margins. The majority of cattle 
producers in the United States are running small, family-owned 
operations, not the large feeding operations or packing facilities 
often focused on by the media. For these family farmers and ranchers, 
one persistent issue like Black vulture depredation can make the 
difference between making the numbers work for another year or being 
forced to downscale or close operations.
    The challenge of Black vultures is one that Congress has the ready 
tools to address, and we can do so without eradicating the species or 
threatening its long-term viability. There is no longer the need to 
protect these birds as if any affirmative management could contribute 
to their decline. To do so makes about as much sense as treating 
squirrels or rats as endangered animals in Washington, DC. I urge you 
to pass the ``Black Vulture Relief Act of 2023'' and equip producers 
with the flexibility they need to protect their livestock against this 
predator species.
    Thank you for inviting me to testify on this critical issue and the 
commonsense solution that has been put forward for the Subcommittee's 
consideration. I look forward to answering any questions.

                                 ______
                                 

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

 STATEMENT OF STEVE WOLFF, GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHWESTERN WATER 
            CONSERVATION DISTRICT, DURANGO, COLORADO

    Mr. Wolff. Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and 
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify regarding H.R. 4596. My name is Steve Wolff, and I 
currently serve as General Manager of the Southwestern Water 
Conservation District in Durango, Colorado.
    The district was created by the Colorado General Assembly 
in 1941 to protect, conserve, use, and develop the water 
resources of the San Juan and Dolores River basins for the 
welfare of all people in southwest Colorado.
    I would like to thank Representative Boebert for 
introducing this bill, and commend her staff for their efforts 
to seek input from the participants in the two recovery 
programs.
    Southwestern has been a participant in San Juan recovery 
program since its inception in 1992. I currently serve on two 
subcommittees representing water users in the Upper Colorado 
River program and in the San Juan program. Prior to my time in 
Southwestern, I worked for the Wyoming State Engineer's office. 
As part of my duties there I represented the State of Wyoming 
on the Upper Colorado River Program Management Committee from 
2013 to 2021, and served as Chair from 2016 to 2021. This 
background has given me perspective on the benefits and the 
needs of the programs that I would like to share with you 
today.
    The purpose of H.R. 4596 is to reauthorize the Bureau of 
Reclamation to provide cost-shared funding to implement the 
endangered and threatened fishery programs for the Upper 
Colorado and San Juan River basins. The authorization for the 
period of Fiscal Year 2024 through Fiscal Year 2031 is for $50 
million for capital projects and $80 million for annual base 
funding. These authorizations are adjusted annually for 
inflation.
    The Upper Colorado program was established in 1988. The San 
Juan program was established in 1992. These programs were both 
established with two principal goals in mind: the recovery of 
four threatened and endangered fish species listed under the 
Federal ESA, and to allow water development and water 
management activities to proceed in a manner consistent with 
state water law. These programs have been and continue to be 
successful on both of these goals.
    Reclamation, in cooperation with the four Upper Colorado 
River Basin states and other partners, has been a participant 
in the program since their inception. Reclamation funding, 
along with the substantial funding and in-kind contributions by 
non-Federal parties, is essential to the continued success of 
the programs. For example, non-Federal water users have 
provided 2.9 million acre-feet of contributed water to benefit 
these endangered species and their habitats, with an estimated 
value of $580 million.
    As I stated earlier, these programs have the goal of 
recovering four threatened endangered fish species listed under 
ESA in a manner consistent with state and wildlife law, 
Reclamation project authorizations, and interstate water 
compacts adopted by Congress. The list of species are Colorado 
pikeminnow, humpback chub, razorback sucker, and bonytail. 
These species are native to and found only in the Colorado 
River basin.
    The programs have been implemented with cooperation and 
participation of Federal agencies; the states of Colorado, 
Utah, New Mexico, and Wyoming; water users; environmental 
organizations; power customers; and Native American tribes. 
These programs have been successful in preserving and moving 
the listed species toward recovery.
    Prior to the implementation of the programs, these species 
were on the verge of extinction. The actions taken to preserve 
and recover the species are considered by the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service in evaluating the impacts of water development 
and management activities in the Upper Colorado River and San 
Juan River basins on the four listed fish species as required 
by the ESA.
    To date, the Service has independently determined that the 
actions taken by the two recovery programs provide ESA 
compliance for 2,500 water projects in the four Upper Basin 
states. These projects include every Reclamation project in the 
basins upstream of Lake Powell.
    The programs allow the United States to fulfill its trust 
responsibilities to Native American tribes with respect to 
water development and ESA compliance. Importantly, no lawsuits 
have been filed on ESA compliance with these two programs 
during the past 30 years.
    Program participants are concerned that the $80 million 
authorized for annual base funding in H.R. 4596 is below the 
amount needed for the two recovery programs. However, we do 
recognize that the rules of the House have kept this funding 
flat, but we will seek ways to increase that funding to the $92 
million that is in the Senate version of this bill.
    In closing, I would like to emphasize that these programs 
have been successful in the goals of preserving and moving 
listed species toward recovery.
    I urge you to approve this bill. I will be happy to take 
any questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Wolff follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steve Wolff, General Manager, Southwestern Water 
                         Conservation District
                              on H.R. 4596

    Good morning, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and Members 
of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding 
H.R. 4596.
    My name is Steve Wolff and I currently serve as the General Manager 
of the Southwestern Water Conservation District (Southwestern), in 
Durango Colorado. The District was created by the Colorado General 
Assembly in 1941 to protect, conserve, use, and develop the water 
resources of the San Juan and Dolores River Basins for the welfare of 
the people in southwest Colorado. Southwestern has been participating 
in the San Juan Program since its inception. I would also like to thank 
Representative Boebert for introducing this bill and commend her staff 
for their efforts to seek input from the participants in the two 
recovery programs on the bill.
    I currently serve on two committees representing water users 
participating in the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery 
Program and the San Juan River Recovery Implementation Program. Prior 
to my current position, I was employed by the Wyoming State Engineer's 
office for 15 years. As part of my duties there, I represented the 
State of Wyoming on the Management Committee of the Upper Colorado 
River Endangered Fish Recovery Program from 2013 to 2021, including 
serving as Chair from 2016 to 2021. My background has given me a 
perspective on the benefits and needs of these programs that I would 
like to share with you today with respect to H.R. 4596.

    Summary: The purpose of H.R. 4596 is to reauthorize the Bureau of 
Reclamation (Reclamation) to provide cost-shared funding to implement 
the endangered and threatened fish recovery programs for the Upper 
Colorado and San Juan River basins. The authorization for the period of 
FY 24 through FY 31 is for $50 million for capital projects and $80 
million dollars for base (annual) funding. Funding authorizations are 
adjusted annually for inflation.
    The Upper Colorado Program was established in 1988. The San Juan 
Program was established in 1992. These programs were established with 
two principal goals; 1) the recovery of four threatened and endangered 
fish species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), and 
2) allow water development and management activities to proceed in a 
manner consistent with state water law. These programs have been and 
continue to be successful in meeting both of those goals.
    Reclamation, in cooperation with the four Upper Colorado River 
basin states and other partners, has been a participant in the programs 
since their inception. Reclamation funding, along with substantial 
funding and in-kind contributions by non-federal parties, is essential 
to the continued success of the programs. Non-federal water users have 
provided 2.9 million acre-feet of water to benefit endangered species 
and their habitats with an estimated value of at least $580 million.
    As I stated earlier, these programs have the goal of recovering 
four threatened and endangered fish species listed under the federal 
Endangered Species Act (ESA) in a manner consistent with state water 
and wildlife law, Reclamation project authorizations, and interstate 
water compacts adopted by Congress. The listed species are the Colorado 
pikeminnow, humpback chub, razorback sucker, and bonytail. The species 
are native to and found only in the Colorado River basin.
    The programs have been implemented with the cooperation and 
participation of federal agencies, the states of Colorado, Utah, New 
Mexico, and Wyoming, water users, environmental organizations, power 
customers, and Native American tribes. These programs have been 
successful in preserving and moving the listed species toward recovery. 
Prior to the implementation of the programs, the species were on the 
verge of extinction.
    The actions taken to preserve and recover the species are 
considered by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) in evaluating 
the impacts of water development and management activities in the Upper 
Colorado River and San Juan River basins on the four listed fish 
species as required by the ESA. To date, the Service has independently 
determined that the actions taken by the recovery programs provide ESA 
compliance for 2,500 water projects in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and New 
Mexico. These projects include every Reclamation project in the basins 
upstream of Lake Powell. The programs allow the United States to 
fulfill its trust responsibilities to Native American tribes with 
respect to water development and management activities compliance with 
the Endangered Species Act. Importantly, no lawsuits have been filed on 
ESA compliance provided by the recovery programs.
    Program participants are concerned that the $80 million authorized 
for annual base funding by Reclamation in H.R. 4596 is below the amount 
needed by the two recovery programs. The participants identified a need 
for $11.85 million in Reclamation funding for fiscal years 2024 through 
2028 and $10.93 million for fiscal years 2029 through 2031, totaling 
$92.04 million for the authorization period in H.R. 4596. These amounts 
would also be adjusted for inflation.
    The program participants are aware that the current rules of the 
House of Representatives limit the amount to be authorized in 
compliance with the `cut go' rule. We will continue looking for 
opportunities to increase authorized base funding in compliance with 
House rules.
    The recovery programs have been successful in the goals of 
preserving and moving listed species towards recovery and in providing 
ESA compliance for 2,500 water projects in the Upper Colorado and San 
Juan river basins. Cost-sharing funding authorized by H.R. 4596 is 
essential for the continued success of the programs.

    I will be happy to answer any questions from Subcommittee members. 
If I cannot provide answers, I request your permission to provide 
written responses subsequent to this hearing in a time frame specified 
by the Subcommittee.

    Cooperation and Collaboration: Participants in the two programs 
include;

     States of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and Wyoming,

     Navajo Nation, Jicarilla Apache Nation, Ute Mountain Ute 
            Tribe, Southern Ute Tribe,

     The Nature Conservancy, Western Resource Advocates,

     Colorado River Energy Distributors Association,

     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, 
            Western Area Power Administration, Bureau of Indian 
            Affairs, and Bureau of Land Management.

    The program partners participate in management and technical 
committees that determine actions and the priority of actions to be 
taken by the recovery programs to benefit listed fish, the development 
of annual work plans, and the development of long-range plans.

    Recovery Program Activities to Benefit Threatened and Endangered 
Fish: The programs provide ESA compliance for basin-wide water 
development activities using an innovative structure to adaptively 
manage on-the-ground recovery actions at a system-wide level rather 
than project by project. This allows for more effective recovery 
actions and more efficient use of resources. Ongoing research and 
monitoring assure that recovery activities to benefit the species are 
effective, efficiently implemented, scientifically based, and evaluated 
through an adaptive management process. The components of the programs 
are

     instream flow identification and protection,

     habitat restoration,

     nonnative fish management,

     outreach,

     research and monitoring, and

     program management.

    Activities supported by base (annual) funding include operation and 
maintenance of capital facilities, instream flow management, stocking 
of endangered fish, nonnative fish management, research and monitoring, 
and program management.
    These capital and base-funded activities are vital to the 
preservation and recovery of the species and to providing ESA 
compliance for water development and management activities in the two 
basins. These are the activities that are provided with continuing 
cost-share funding authorized in H.R. 4596 and with substantial cash 
and in-kind contributions by non-federal partners.

    Status of the Endangered Fish: At the beginning of the recovery 
programs, two of the listed species, Colorado pikeminnow, and humpback 
chub were on the verge of extinction. The razorback sucker and bonytail 
were found only in very low numbers. In 2021, the Service down listed 
the humpback chub from endangered to threatened and proposed down 
listing of the razorback sucker from endangered to threatened. The 
programs have preserved populations of Colorado pikeminnow. The Upper 
Colorado Program is stocking bonytail to restore populations in the 
Upper Colorado River basin.

    Funding Authorized by H.R. 4596: H.R. 4596 authorizes 
appropriations to the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) for capital 
and base (annual) funding of the recovery programs. For the period of 
FY 24 through FY 31 capital funding is authorized to $50 million and 
base funding is authorized at $80 million, based on $10 million per 
year. Both capital and base funding are adjusted for inflation each 
year to ensure that funding is increased with the cost of construction 
and personnel. The inflation adjustment is a critical component of both 
programs' funding.
    Recovery Program participants have identified capital funding needs 
of $50 million over the authorization period. These needs include the 
construction of fish passages, fish screens, hatcheries, and habitat 
development and improvement. In addition, capital funding is used to 
rehabilitate aging capital projects constructed over the last 30 years 
and to make structural improvements to the project for more efficient 
and effective operation. The capital projects provide the 
infrastructure needed to preserve and recover the listed species. The 
states will contribute capital funds on a project-by-project basis as 
funds are available.
    Activities supported by base funding include operation and 
maintenance of capital facilities, instream flow management, stocking 
of endangered fish, nonnative fish management, research and monitoring, 
and program management. In addition to base funding provided by 
Reclamation, direct cash funding is also provided by the states and 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The states provide $500,000 per year in 
annual funding. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provides $1.5 million 
per year. These are in addition to the substantial in-kind and cash 
equivalent contributions discussed below.
    Within the last year, participants in the programs conducted a 
thorough assessment of future needs and costs to continue the 
preservation and recovery of the listed species. Program participants 
are concerned that the $80 million authorized for annual base funding 
by Reclamation in H.R. 4596 is below the amount needed by the two 
recovery programs. The participants identified a need for $11.85 
million in Reclamation funding for fiscal years 2024 through 2028 and 
$10.93 million for fiscal years 2029 through 2031, totaling $92.04 
million for the authorization period in H.R. 4596. These amounts would 
also be adjusted for inflation.
    The program participants are aware that current rules of the House 
of Representatives limit the amount to be authorized in compliance with 
the `cut go' rule. We will continue looking for opportunities to 
increase authorized base funding in compliance with House rules.

    Cash and In-Kind Contributions by Non-Federal Participants: In-
kind, cash, cash equivalent, land, and water contributions to the 
recovery programs have been made by non-federal participants in the 
programs including states, tribes, power customers, water users, and 
environmental organizations. These contributions have supported both 
capital and annual activities. These contributions will continue to be 
made through FY 31 and beyond. These contributions are in addition to 
direct cash contributions by Reclamation and other parties.
    In-kind funding and actions provided by non-federal participants in 
the Upper Colorado and San Juan Programs are substantial and essential 
for the preservation and recovery of the listed fishes. In-kind 
contributions are essential for providing ESA compliance for over 2,500 
federal, tribal, and non-federal water projects upstream of Lake 
Powell.
    It has been common for the states to contribute additional staffing 
and funding to support the annual activities of the programs. Cash-
equivalent contributions that the states fund provide directly support 
activities in the programs' annual workplans and reduce cash 
expenditures by the programs. Examples of current cash-equivalent 
actions include direct funding of stream gages utilized by the 
programs, operation of a fish hatchery, water management by state water 
agencies to assure protection and delivery of water to endanger fish 
habitat, and non-native fish control activities by state wildlife 
agencies.

    Water for Endangered Fish: Under the recovery programs, water users 
and the states have agreed to provide water to benefit the listed 
species in accordance with state water law and interstate compacts 
approved by Congress. Reclamation operates Reclamation projects in 
accordance with congressional authorizations. There has been no taking 
water from any water user or Reclamation contractor.
    Water users and the recovery programs have cooperatively 
implemented water efficiency projects that provide saved water to 
benefit listed fish and their habitats. Water is also provided to 
augment the spring peak and base flows through efficient operation of 
federal and non-federal projects without diminishing the yields of 
those projects.
    From 1998 through 2022, non-federal water users have contributed 
approximately 2.9 million acre-feet of water to benefit endangered 
fish. The value of this water, if it had to be purchased at a nominal 
low estimated cost of $200 per acre-foot, would be $590 million.
    Without the provision of water to benefit endangered fish and the 
management of water by states for delivery to the listed species' 
habitat, the programs could not provide ESA compliance for federal, 
tribal, or non-federal water projects.

    Federal Native American Trust Responsibilities: Average annual 
total depletions in the San Juan River basin are approximately 869,000 
acre-feet per year. Tribal depletions and settlements account for 
approximately 62% of the depletions totaling 540,000 acre-feet per 
year. Tribal and non-tribal depletions are provided with ESA compliance 
by the San Juan Recovery Program. The San Juan Recovery Program allows 
the United States to carry out its trust responsibilities with respect 
to tribal depletions and settlements in compliance with the ESA.

    Endangered Species Act Compliance: The Endangered Species Act 
requires federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service on any action taken that may affect threatened or endangered 
species. These actions include issuance/renewal of contracts for water 
from Reclamation projects, permitting, and granting rights of way. The 
Service has been required to identify reasonable and prudent 
alternatives and measures to mitigate the impacts of those actions. 
Almost all federal, tribal, and non-federal water projects are subject 
to ESA compliance in the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River basins 
due to impacts on the listed species.
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has agreed to consider actions taken 
by the recovery programs to determine if those actions provide 
compliance with the Endangered Species Act for water projects. The 
Service independently makes such a determination but is not obligated 
to make a determination that Recovery Program actions provide ESA 
compliance. The Service also conducts a biennial assessment of the 
programs overall to determine if the programs are continuing to provide 
ESA compliance for the water projects consulted on. In these 
assessments, the Service may make recommendations to ensure that the 
programs continue to provide ESA compliance. These recommendations are 
incorporated into the recovery programs' annual work plans.
    Since the inception of the San Juan and Upper Colorado programs in 
1988 and 1992 respectively, the Service has found that the programs 
provide ESA compliance for approximately 2,500 federal, tribal, and 
non-federal water projects depleting approximately 3.8 million acre-
feet per year in Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico. These 
projects include every Reclamation project in the two basins upstream 
of Lake Powell. ESA compliance provided by the programs provides much 
more efficient administration of and compliance with the ESA for water 
users, federal agencies, and the Service. There have been no lawsuits 
contesting ESA compliance provided by the recovery programs.

    Conclusion: The recovery programs have been successful in achieving 
the goals of preserving and moving listed species towards recovery and 
in providing ESA compliance for 2,500 water projects in the Upper 
Colorado and San Juan river basins. Cost-sharing funding authorized by 
H.R. 4596 is essential for the continued success of the programs.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
    Mrs. Boebert, you are recognized to tell us a little more 
about the witness that we just heard.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my great honor 
and pleasure to have with us today Steve Wolff, General Manager 
of the Southwestern Water Conservation District.
    Prior to this position, Steve served as the Interstate 
Streams Division Administrator in the Wyoming State Engineer's 
Office. Before his time at the Wyoming State Engineer's office, 
Mr. Wolff worked for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 
serving as Manager for the Aquatic Habitat and Water Management 
Group.
    I was absolutely thrilled to join Steve and other water 
users at the Southwestern Water Conservation District's 39th 
Southwest Water Seminar earlier this year that Steve organized 
and led. It was a great program, and it was very well done, 
very well attended. It is always a pleasure to have meetings 
pertaining to such important issues in Colorado's 3rd District 
like water. These are typically our top three issues that we 
face in western Colorado: water, water, and water.
    And I am also very excited to continue working with Mr. 
Wolff on the passage of my bill, H.R. 4596, my Upper Colorado 
and San Juan River Basins Endangered Fish Recovery Programs 
Reauthorization Act of 2023.
    Mr. Wolff, thank you so much for joining us here in this 
Committee, and thanks for making the trip.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mrs. Boebert. I now recognize Mr. 
Shawcroft for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF GENE SHAWCROFT, GENERAL MANAGER, CENTRAL UTAH 
             WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, OREM, UTAH

    Mr. Shawcroft. Thank you, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member 
Huffman, Congressman Curtis, and members of the Subcommittee. 
On behalf of the Central Utah Water Conservancy District, I 
thank you for inviting me to speak in support of the Great Salt 
Lake Stewardship Act, H.R. 4094.
    This critically important bill amends the Central Utah 
Project Completion Act or, as we affectionately call it, CUPCA, 
to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to redirect 
authorized and unexpended central Utah project funds toward new 
conservation measures to help recover the Great Salt Lake, 
Utah's most famous natural resource.
    I especially want to thank my good friend, Congressman 
Curtis, along with all of Utah's Congressional Delegation 
members, for leading the introduction of H.R. 4094.
    As both General Manager of the Central Utah Water 
Conservancy District and Chair of Utah's Colorado River 
Authority, I can say unequivocally that Utah has got the 
message on the urgent need for water conservation. Water 
conservation is now one of Utah's top priorities.
    The existing congressionally authorized funding that is 
being repurposed in this bill is being diverted from old CUPCA 
priorities that were planned decades ago, increasing water flow 
to the Great Salt Lake, which is now paramount. This year, the 
Great Salt Lake experienced record low levels, causing 
widespread concern about dust carrying airborne toxins, brine 
shrimp, ecosystem health, and our ability to preserve fragile 
migratory bird refuge habitat.
    The state of Utah, Utah water users, and other stakeholders 
have been working to find immediate and sustainable solutions 
to support the Great Salt Lake. While this winter and spring 
provided record-breaking snow and ideal runoff conditions, 
water professionals know this granted only a temporary 
reprieve. Extreme water conditions are now the norm, as 
evidenced by this summer's heat. We have to adapt permanently.
    H.R. 4094 will extend and expand the district's very 
successful water conservation program authorized originally in 
CUPCA. CUPCA was part of a monumental bipartisan omnibus bill, 
P.L. 102-575, spearheaded and passed in 1992 by Senator Jake 
Garn of Utah and Representative George Miller of California.
    I want to emphasize that this bill does not require any new 
spending authorization. Funding would come through the 
programmatic funding Congress provided to the CUPCA program. We 
estimate that as much as $100 million of already authorized 
Central Utah project funds could be reprogrammed to fund water 
conservation projects through the entire Great Salt Lake Basin.
    Under section 207 in CUPCA, the district established a 
water conservation credit program to distribute funds for water 
conservation. Since the program's inception, we have received 
132 applications; 45 projects have been selected and funded. 
The highest weighted criteria for project funding is the amount 
of water conserved.
    Over $122 million in Federal funds have been distributed so 
far, financing up to 65 percent of a conservation project's 
total cost. To date, funded projects have conserved a combined 
total of over 2.2 million acre-feet, with annual projections of 
approximately 140,000 acre-feet. This Act would expand the 
program to include any conservation project that provides 
demonstratable water saving benefits in the Great Salt Lake 
drainage basin.
    To conclude, if enacted, the Great Salt Lake Stewardship 
Act provides a mechanism for sustainable funding and support 
for water conservation projects that will benefit the Salt Lake 
Basin. H.R. 4094 has the capability to expand conservation 
benefits without increasing Federal spending beyond what has 
already been authorized by Congress for the CUPCA program. This 
will provide a stable access to funding for those projects that 
conserve water for the benefit of the Great Salt Lake.
    Thank you, and I am happy to answer any questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Shawcroft follows:]
  Prepared Statement of Gene Shawcroft, General Manager, Central Utah 
                       Water Conservancy District
                              on H.R. 4094

    Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, Congressman Curtis and 
members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the Central Utah Water 
Conservancy District, I thank you for inviting me to speak in support 
of the Great Salt Lake Stewardship Act (H.R. 4094). This critically 
important bill amends the Central Utah Project Completion Act or as we 
affectionally call it, ``CUPCA'', to authorize the Secretary of the 
Interior to redirect authorized and unexpended Central Utah Project 
funds towards new water conservation measures to help recover the Great 
Salt Lake--Utah's most famous natural resource! I especially want to 
thank my good friend Congressman John Curtis along with all of Utah's 
Congressional delegation members, for leading the introduction of H.R. 
4094. As both General Manager of the Central Utah Water Conservancy 
District (District) and Chair of Utah's Colorado River Authority, I can 
say unequivocally that Utah has ``got the message'' on the urgent need 
for water conservation. Water conservation is now one of the State's 
top priorities.
    The existing Congressionally authorized funding that is being 
repurposed in this bill is being diverted from old CUPCA priorities 
that were planned decades ago. Increasing water flow to the Great Salt 
Lake basin is now more paramount. This year, the Great Salt Lake 
experienced record low levels causing widespread concern about dust 
carrying airborne toxins, Brine Shrimp ecosystem health, and our 
ability to preserve fragile migratory bird refuge habitat. The State of 
Utah, water users and other stakeholders have been working to find 
immediate and sustainable solutions to support the Great Salt Lake. 
While this winter and spring provided record breaking snow and ideal 
runoff conditions, water professionals know this granted a temporary 
reprieve. Extreme weather conditions are now the norm as evidenced by 
this summer's record heat. We have to adapt, permanently.
Overview of the Great Salt Lake Stewardship Act--H.R. 4094

    H.R. 4094 will extend and expand the District's very successful 
water conservation program authorized originally in CUPCA. CUPCA was 
part of a monumental bipartisan omnibus water bill, P.L. 102-575, 
spearheaded and passed in 1992 by Senator Jake Garn (R-Utah) and Rep. 
George Miller (D-CA).
    I want to emphasize that this bill does not require any new 
spending authorization. Funding would come through the programmatic 
funding Congress provides to the CUPCA program within the Department of 
Interior's budget each year. The federal funding that is allocated to 
CUPCA is paid back to the U.S. Treasury over time, with interest. 
Together with the Department of the Interior, the District estimates 
that as much as $100 million of already authorized Central Utah Project 
funds could be reprogrammed to fund water conservation projects 
throughout the entire Great Salt Lake basin. The bill also would expand 
the program from the existing 8 counties to include a total of 12 
counties along the populous Wasatch front. This will assist efforts by 
the State of Utah, local communities and water districts north of Salt 
Lake County from which the Great Salt Lake receives most of its water. 
These areas have also been hit by the state's worst drought conditions.
Section 207 of CUPCA

    Under Section 207 in CUPCA, the District established a Water 
Conservation Credit Program to distribute funds for water conservation. 
Since the program's inception, we have received 132 applications from 
diverse project sponsors that include agriculture, urban, cities, water 
districts, and nonprofits. Under Section 207, even the State Director 
of Natural Resources can propose a conservation project. All projects 
are reviewed by the Utah Water Conservation Advisory Board consisting 
of nine members. They provide recommendations of the projects that 
should advance forward for funding. To date, 45 projects have been 
selected and funded at various stages of implementation. The highest 
weighted criteria for project funding is the amount of water conserved. 
Many are large scale capital-intensive construction projects, such as 
canal lining/enclosures, secondary water systems, irrigation 
improvements and recently turf grass removal projects. Over $122 
million in federal funds have been distributed so far, financing up to 
65% of a conservation project's total cost.
    In 2020 alone, the water savings from these projects were enough to 
nearly fill Deer Creek Reservoir, which has a capacity of 152,000 acre-
feet. To date, funded projects have conserved a combined total of 
2,242,450-acre feet \1\ with annual projections of approximately 
140,000-acre feet of conserved water moving forward. The results of 
these projects have continued to exceed projections and established 
goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Section 207 Water Conservation Credit Program 2022 Annual 
Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Until this bill, all conservation projects had to be within the 
footprint of the Central Utah Project service area, which includes the 
Uinta basin. The Great Salt Lake Stewardship Act would expand the 
program to include any conservation project that provides demonstrable 
water saving benefits in the Great Salt Lake drainage basin.
Conclusion

    If enacted, the Great Salt Lake Stewardship Act provides a 
mechanism for sustainable funding and support for water conservation 
projects that will benefit the Salt Lake basin. H.R. 4094 has the 
capability to expand conservation benefits without increasing federal 
spending beyond what has been already authorized by Congress for the 
CUPCA program. This will provide a stable access to funding for those 
projects that conserve water for the benefit of the Great Salt Lake.

                                 ______
                                 

The following documents were submitted as supplements to Ms. 
        Shawcroft's testimony.

                             STATE OF UTAH

                    Department of Natural Resources

                                                  July 25, 2023    

        Hon. Mike Lee                 Hon. Mitt Romney
        U.S. Senate                   U.S. Senate
        Russell Senate Office Bldg    Russell Senate Office Bldg
        Washington, DC 20510          Washington, DC 20510

        Hon. John Curtis              Hon. Chris Stewart
        U.S. House of 
        Representatives               U.S. House of Representatives
        Rayburn House Office Bldg     Cannon House Office Bldg
        Washington, DC 20515          Washington, DC 20515

        Hon. Burgess Owens            Hon. Blake Moore
        U.S. House of 
        Representatives               U.S. House of Representatives
        Cannon House Office Bldg      Longworth House Office Bldg
        Washington, DC 20515          Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support for the Great Salt Lake Stewardship Act (H.R. 4094/S. 1955)

    Dear Utah Congressional Delegation:

    I express my full support for the Great Salt Lake Stewardship Act. 
The Division of Water Resources' mission is to plan, conserve, develop 
and protect Utah's water resources. Great Salt Lake--the largest 
terminal lake in the Western Hemisphere--is facing significant threats 
as prolonged drought and increased demand for water plague the West. 
The state of Utah is confident that we can ameliorate the drought-
stricken challenges within the Great Salt Lake watershed and the lake 
will continue to be a globally significant resource for tens of 
millions of migratory birds and support industries critical to the U.S. 
manufacturing, defense and farming. Federal funding to support these 
efforts is crucial as the task before us is challenging. We have 
prioritized three project areas to bring water to Great Salt Lake: 
water supply enhancement, water conservation and wetland ecosystem 
restoration.
    This legislation provides access to additional funding to increase 
water conservation efforts and augment water flows into the Great Salt 
Lake basin. Water conservation is a top priority, and this bill 
recognizes the importance of advancing projects that will help to 
replenish the Great Salt Lake.
    The Great Salt Lake Stewardship Act will enhance access to federal 
funding for water conservation projects by adding a new provision to 
the Central Utah Project Completion Act (CUPCA--Public Law 102-575). 
This change allows the Secretary of Interior to reallocate unspent 
budget authorities within Title II of CUPCA and to put funds towards 
water conservation activities. Also, the bill expands the scope of the 
CUPCA water conservation program to include the Great Salt Lake basin, 
which will significantly benefit the lake. Finally, the CUPCA program 
enjoys annual funding support from Congress, providing a stable source 
of future funding for water conservation initiatives.
    Thank you for introducing Great Salt Lake Stewardship Act and for 
your work in advancing it through the legislative process.

            Sincerely,

                                     Candice A. Hasenyager,
                                                           Director

                                 ______
                                 

                             STATE OF UTAH

                    Department of Natural Resources

                                                  July 20, 2023    

        Hon. Mike Lee                 Hon. Mitt Romney
        U.S. Senate                   U.S. Senate
        Russell Senate Office Bldg    Russell Senate Office Bldg
        Washington, DC 20510          Washington, DC 20510

        Hon. John Curtis              Hon. Chris Stewart
        U.S. House of 
        Representatives               U.S. House of Representatives
        Rayburn House Office Bldg     Cannon House Office Bldg
        Washington, DC 20515          Washington, DC 20515

        Hon. Burgess Owens            Hon. Blake Moore
        U.S. House of 
        Representatives               U.S. House of Representatives
        Cannon House Office Bldg      Longworth House Office Bldg
        Washington, DC 20515          Washington, DC 20515

Re: SUPPORT FOR THE GREAT SALT LAKE STEWARDSHIP ACT (H.R. 4094/S. 1955)

    Dear Utah Congressional Delegation:

    The Utah Department of Natural Resources is writing to express full 
support for the Great Salt Lake Stewardship Act. This legislation 
enhances access to federal funding for water conservation projects by 
expanding the Central Utah Project Completion Act (CUPCA--Public Law 
102-575). This bill allows water conservation projects in the Great 
Salt Lake basin to be included in the CUPCA water conservation program. 
Expanding the scope will bring greater participation from cities, 
irrigation districts, and more. It will also provide a stable funding 
source for future water conservation initiatives.
    The Great Salt Lake is vital to the environment, ecology and 
economy, not just in Utah but also the western United States. For the 
second year in a row, Utah's legislative session concluded with 
significant investment and a long list of bills targeting water 
conservation, efficiency and infrastructure. This investment over the 
past two years totals about $1 billion. It's a great start, but we must 
do more to preserve and protect the lake.
    Record-low levels have prompted unprecedented in interest in the 
lake by media around the globe, policymakers, Utahns across all sectors 
and more. We appreciate this interest and are taking action to protect 
the lake and its unique ecosystem. Unfortunately, it often takes a 
crisis to elevate an issue of this magnitude into the public eye.
    Increasing water flows to the lake is a top and immediate priority. 
This can be accomplished through aggressive and strategic water 
conservation. In the past, Congress has invested federal funding in 
water bodies of national importance, like the Great Salt Lake. The 
Great Salt Lake Stewardship Act is an important piece of legislation 
that will help protect this unique resource.
    Thank you for your help and support as you guide the Great Salt 
Lake Stewardship Act through the legislative process.

            Sincerely,

                                                Joel Ferry,
                                                 Executive Director

                                 ______
                                 

                            TROUT UNLIMITED

                                                  July 18, 2023    

        Hon. Mike Lee                 Hon. Mitt Romney
        U.S. Senate                   U.S. Senate
        Russell Senate Office Bldg    Russell Senate Office Bldg
        Washington, DC 20510          Washington, DC 20510

        Hon. John Curtis              Hon. Chris Stewart
        U.S. House of 
        Representatives               U.S. House of Representatives
        Rayburn House Office Bldg     Cannon House Office Bldg
        Washington, DC 20515          Washington, DC 20515

        Hon. Burgess Owens            Hon. Blake Moore
        U.S. House of 
        Representatives               U.S. House of Representatives
        Cannon House Office Bldg      Longworth House Office Bldg
        Washington, DC 20515          Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support for the Great Salt Lake Stewardship Act (H.R. 4094/S. 1955)

    Dear Utah Congressional Delegation:

    Trout Unlimited is writing to express support for the Great Salt 
Lake Stewardship Act. As one of the preeminent conservation 
organizations working on rivers in the US, we are interested in the 
conservation and preservation of our coldwater streams. This includes 
work to conserve both flow and habitat dependent on riparian and mesic 
systems. This legislation provides access to additional funding 
resources needed to increase water conservation efforts and augment 
water flows into the Great Salt Lake basin. Sustained drought has 
caused the lake levels to decline to a concerning degree. Water 
conservation is a top priority, and this bill recognizes the importance 
of advancing projects that will help to replenish the Great Salt Lake.
    The Great Salt Lake Stewardship Act will enhance access to federal 
funding for water conservation projects by adding a new provision to 
the Central Utah Project Completion Act (CUPCA--Public Law 102-575). 
This change gives the Secretary of Interior the flexibility to 
reallocate unspent budget authorities within Title II of CUPCA and to 
put funds towards water conservation activities. Also, the bill expands 
the scope of the CUPCA water conservation program to now include the 
Great Salt Lake basin, which will greatly benefit the lake. 
Additionally, we would like to see the scope of the bill expand to the 
Uinta Basin where two to three hundred-thousand-acre feet are extracted 
to support the water use of the Wasatch Front. The two systems are 
linked by natural water cycles as well as transbasin diversions and 
water conservation measures should be taken in both to promote healthy 
waterways and communities throughout Utah. Finally, the CUPCA program 
enjoys annual funding support from Congress providing a stable source 
of future funding for water conservation initiatives.
    Healthy streams and habitats are inextricably linked to healthy 
communities with a high quality of life. Conservation measures big and 
small should be prioritized to promote the health and safety of our 
Utah population, the long term and continued health of our agriculture, 
municipal, and industrial water systems, and a healthy ecosystem, all 
of which drive a healthy Utah economy.
    Thank you introducing Great Salt Lake Stewardship Act and for your 
work in advancing it through the legislative process.

            Warm regard,

                                            Jordan Nielson,
                            Utah Water and Habitat Program Director

                                 ______
                                 

                JORDAN VALLEY WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT

                                                  July 17, 2023    

        Hon. Mike Lee                 Hon. Mitt Romney
        U.S. Senate                   U.S. Senate
        Russell Senate Office Bldg    Russell Senate Office Bldg
        Washington, DC 20510          Washington, DC 20510

        Hon. John Curtis              Hon. Chris Stewart
        U.S. House of 
        Representatives               U.S. House of Representatives
        Rayburn House Office Bldg     Cannon House Office Bldg
        Washington, DC 20515          Washington, DC 20515

        Hon. Burgess Owens            Hon. Blake Moore
        U.S. House of 
        Representatives               U.S. House of Representatives
        Cannon House Office Bldg      Longworth House Office Bldg
        Washington, DC 20515          Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support for the Great Salt Lake Stewardship Act (H.R. 4094/S. 1955)

    Dear Utah Congressional Delegation:

    I am pleased to express the full support of the Jordan Valley Water 
Conservancy District (JVWCD) for the Great Salt Lake Stewardship Act. 
As a regional water supply agency serving a population over 775,000 in 
Salt Lake County, JVWCD will benefit from the more flexible water 
conservation enabled by the legislation. This legislation provides 
access to additional funding resources needed to increase water 
conservation efforts and augment water flows into the Great Salt Lake 
basin. Sustained drought has caused the lake levels to decline to a 
concerning degree. Water conservation is a top priority, and this bill 
recognizes the importance of advancing projects that will help to 
replenish Great Salt Lake.
    The Great Salt Lake Stewardship Act will enhance access to federal 
funding for water conservation projects by adding a new provision to 
the Central Utah Project Completion Act (CUPCA--Public Law 102-575). 
This change gives the Secretary of Interior the flexibility to 
reallocate unspent budget authorities within Title II of CUPCA and to 
put funds towards water conservation activities. Also, the bill expands 
the scope of the CUPCA water conservation program to now include the 
Great Salt Lake basin, which will greatly benefit the lake. Finally, 
the CUPCA program enjoys annual funding support from Congress providing 
a stable source of future funding for water conservation initiatives.
    Thank you for introducing Great Salt Lake Stewardship Act and for 
your work in advancing it through the legislative process.

            Sincerely,

                                           Alan E. Packard,
                                                General Manager/CEO

                                 ______
                                 

                         THE NATURE CONSERVANCY

                           Salt Lake City, UT

                                                  July 17, 2023    

        Hon. Mike Lee                 Hon. Mitt Romney
        U.S. Senate                   U.S. Senate
        Russell Senate Office Bldg    Russell Senate Office Bldg
        Washington, DC 20510          Washington, DC 20510

        Hon. John Curtis              Hon. Chris Stewart
        U.S. House of 
        Representatives               U.S. House of Representatives
        Rayburn House Office Bldg     Cannon House Office Bldg
        Washington, DC 20515          Washington, DC 20515

        Hon. Burgess Owens            Hon. Blake Moore
        U.S. House of 
        Representatives               U.S. House of Representatives
        Cannon House Office Bldg      Longworth House Office Bldg
        Washington, DC 20515          Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support for the Great Salt Lake Stewardship Act (H.R. 4094/S. 1955)

    Dear Utah Congressional Delegation:

    On behalf of The Nature Conservancy in Utah, I would like to 
express our support for the Great Salt Lake Stewardship Act. The 
Conservancy has prioritized working on the Great Salt Lake for more 
than three decades and has led and joined water projects throughout the 
state to develop creative solutions to provide water to people and 
nature.
    We know the enormous toll caused by the loss or drying of terminal 
lakes around the world and the costs to human health, the environment, 
and economies, as well as the costs of mitigation. This legislation 
provides access to additional funding resources needed to increase 
water conservation efforts and augment water flows into the Great Salt 
Lake basin. Sustained drought has caused the lake levels to decline to 
a concerning degree. Water conservation is a top priority, and this 
bill recognizes the importance of advancing projects that will help to 
replenish the Great Salt Lake.
    The Great Salt Lake Stewardship Act will enhance access to federal 
funding for water conservation projects by adding a new provision to 
the Central Utah Project Completion Act (CUPCA--Public Law 102-575). 
This change gives the Secretary of Interior the flexibility to 
reallocate unspent budget authorities within Title II of CUPCA and to 
put funds towards water conservation activities. Also, the bill expands 
the scope of the CUPCA water conservation program to now include the 
Great Salt Lake basin, which will greatly benefit the lake. Finally, 
the CUPCA program enjoys annual funding support from Congress providing 
a stable source of future funding for water conservation initiatives.
    We appreciate the full Utah delegation joining together on this 
critical issue to introduce the Great Salt Lake Stewardship Act and for 
your efforts move towards passage. Working together we can avoid the 
potential for economic, public health, and ecological harm experienced 
by other communities faced with drying lakes.

            Sincerely,

                                            Dave Livermore,
                                                     State Director

                                 ______
                                 

                    COLORADO RIVER AUTHORITY OF UTAH

                                                  July 17, 2023    

        Hon. Mike Lee                 Hon. Mitt Romney
        U.S. Senate                   U.S. Senate
        Russell Senate Office Bldg    Russell Senate Office Bldg
        Washington, DC 20510          Washington, DC 20510

        Hon. John Curtis              Hon. Chris Stewart
        U.S. House of 
        Representatives               U.S. House of Representatives
        Rayburn House Office Bldg     Cannon House Office Bldg
        Washington, DC 20515          Washington, DC 20515

        Hon. Burgess Owens            Hon. Blake Moore
        U.S. House of 
        Representatives               U.S. House of Representatives
        Cannon House Office Bldg      Longworth House Office Bldg
        Washington, DC 20515          Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support for the Great Salt Lake Stewardship Act (H.R. 4094/S. 1955)

    Honorable Members of the Utah Congressional Delegation:

    On behalf of the Colorado River Authority of Utah (Authority), I 
write to express our full support for the Great Salt lake Stewardship 
Act. The Authority was created in 2021 by the Utah legislature to 
``protect, conserve, use and develop Utah's waters of the Colorado 
River system.'' Section 63M-14-21 UCA. In accordance with our statutory 
mandate, the Authority supports the conservation initiatives undertaken 
by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District through the Water 
Conservation Credit Program which have yielded significant benefits to 
the Central Utah Project. However, the proposed expansion of this 
Program to include water conservation projects to benefit the Great 
Salt Lake would provide enormous benefit to the state by both enhancing 
resiliency in Utah's Colorado River water supply and restoring the 
Great Salt Lake--arguably the two most pressing water issues facing the 
Wasatch Front. This legislation provides access to additional funding 
resources needed to increase water conservation efforts and augment 
water flows into the Great Salt Lake basin, which have significantly 
declined due to sustained drought and have resulted in alarming drops 
in lake levels. Water conservation is a top priority, and this bill 
recognizes the importance of advancing projects that will help to 
replenish the Great Salt Lake.
    The Great Salt Lake Stewardship Act will enhance access to federal 
funding for water conservation projects by adding a new provision to 
the Central Utah Project Completion Act (CUPCA--Public Law 102-575). 
This change gives the Secretary of Interior the flexibility to 
reallocate unspent budget authority within Title II of CUPCA and to put 
funds towards water conservation activities. Also, the bill expands the 
scope of the CUPCA water conservation program to now include the Great 
Salt Lake basin, which will greatly benefit the lake. Finally, the 
CUPCA program enjoys annual funding support from Congress providing a 
stable source of future funding for water conservation initiatives.
    Thank you introducing Great Salt Lake Stewardship Act and for your 
work in advancing it through the legislative process.

            Sincerely,

                                               Amy I. Haas,
                                                 Executive Director

                                 ______
                                 

                       FRIENDS OF GREAT SALT LAKE

                                                  July 17, 2023    

        Hon. Mike Lee                 Hon. Mitt Romney
        U.S. Senate                   U.S. Senate
        Russell Senate Office Bldg    Russell Senate Office Bldg
        Washington, DC 20510          Washington, DC 20510

        Hon. John Curtis              Hon. Chris Stewart
        U.S. House of 
        Representatives               U.S. House of Representatives
        Rayburn House Office Bldg     Cannon House Office Bldg
        Washington, DC 20515          Washington, DC 20515

        Hon. Burgess Owens            Hon. Blake Moore
        U.S. House of 
        Representatives               U.S. House of Representatives
        Cannon House Office Bldg      Longworth House Office Bldg
        Washington, DC 20515          Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support for the Great Salt Lake Stewardship Act (H.R. 4094/S. 1955)

    Dear Utah Congressional Delegation:

    I'm writing on behalf of FRIENDS of Great Salt Lake to express our 
full support for the Great Salt Lake Stewardship Act. FRIENDS of Great 
Salt Lake is a 501c3 membership organization founded in 1994. Our 
mission is to preserve and protect the Great Salt Lake ecosystem and to 
increase public awareness and appreciation through education, research, 
advocacy, and the arts. Although we work on a daily basis with GSL 
stakeholders, policy makers and the community at large, the scope of 
our work goes beyond the Lake's watershed so we can learn more about 
the science, management challenges, and policies from regional, 
hemispheric, and global partners working on these unique and extremely 
complex saline ecosystems. FRIENDS supports this bill because the work 
that is required to preserve and protect what is not only a 
hemispherically critical ecosystem for millions of migratory birds that 
rely on it, but also a Public Trust resource to be managed in 
perpetuity for the people of Utah requires an ``all hands on deck'' 
approach. Your initiative with the introduction of the Great Salt Lake 
Stewardship Act endorses that responsibility and approach. Thank you.
    Since 2017, FRIENDS has worked closely with the Utah Legislature in 
support of its work to generate important water legislation addressing 
the sustainable management of Utah's water supply while our population 
continues to grow and Great Salt Lake continues to decline. FRIENDS has 
been working with an array of GSL stakeholders including state, local, 
and federal government agencies, academia, industry and scientists. 
Doing this work, FRIENDS has had the particular honor and pleasure of 
working closely with Speaker Brad Wilson, Utah House of Representatives 
on timely legislation and public education to address the future of 
Great Salt Lake.
    The Great Salt Lake Stewardship Act provides access to additional 
funding resources needed to increase water conservation efforts and 
augment water flows into the Great Salt Lake basin. Sustained drought 
has caused the lake levels to decline to a concerning degree. Water 
conservation is a top priority, and this bill recognizes the importance 
of advancing projects that will help to replenish the Great Salt Lake.
    The Great Salt Lake Stewardship Act will enhance access to federal 
funding for water conservation projects by adding a new provision to 
the Central Utah Project Completion Act (CUPCA--Public Law 102-575). 
This change gives the Secretary of Interior the flexibility to 
reallocate unspent budget authorities within Title II of CUPCA and to 
put funds towards water conservation activities. Also, the bill expands 
the scope of the CUPCA water conservation program to now include the 
Great Salt Lake basin, which will greatly benefit the lake. Finally, 
the CUPCA program enjoys annual funding support from Congress providing 
a stable source of future funding for water conservation initiatives.
    We live along the shores of something GREAT-Great Salt Lake. A lake 
that defines our history, our culture and our sense of place.
    Thank you for introducing the Great Salt Lake Stewardship Act and 
for your work in advancing it through the legislative process.

            In saline and solidarity,

                                        Lynn E. de Freitas,
                                                 Executive Director

                                 ______
                                 

                 WEBER BASIN WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT

                              Layton, Utah

                                                  July 14, 2023    

        Hon. Mike Lee                 Hon. Mitt Romney
        U.S. Senate                   U.S. Senate
        Russell Senate Office Bldg    Russell Senate Office Bldg
        Washington, DC 20510          Washington, DC 20510

        Hon. John Curtis              Hon. Chris Stewart
        U.S. House of 
        Representatives               U.S. House of Representatives
        Rayburn House Office Bldg     Cannon House Office Bldg
        Washington, DC 20515          Washington, DC 20515

        Hon. Burgess Owens            Hon. Blake Moore
        U.S. House of 
        Representatives               U.S. House of Representatives
        Cannon House Office Bldg      Longworth House Office Bldg
        Washington, DC 20515          Washington, DC 20515

Re: Support for the Great Salt Lake Stewardship Act (H.R. 4094/S. 1955)

    Dear Utah Congressional Delegation:

    The Weber Basin Water Conservancy District would like to express 
our full support for the Great Salt Lake Stewardship Act. With a 
regional water supply responsibility, our District wholesales water to 
and develops additional supplies for cities, districts and companies in 
five Utah counties, serving over 700,000 people. This legislation 
provides access to additional funding resources needed to increase 
water conservation efforts and augment water flows into the Great Salt 
Lake. Sustained drought has caused the lake levels to decline to a 
concerning degree. Water conservation is a top priority, and this bill 
recognizes the importance of advancing projects that will help to 
replenish the Great Salt Lake.
    The Great Salt Lake Stewardship Act will enhance access to federal 
funding for water conservation projects by adding a new provision to 
the Central Utah Project Completion Act (CUPCA--Public Law 102-575). 
This change gives the Secretary of Interior the flexibility to 
reallocate unspent budget authorities within Title II of CUPCA and to 
put funds towards water conservation activities. Also, the bill expands 
the scope of the CUPCA water conservation program to now include the 
Great Salt Lake basin, which will greatly benefit the lake. Finally, 
the CUPCA program enjoys annual funding support from Congress providing 
a stable source of future funding for water conservation initiatives.
    Weber Basin Water Conservancy District has been intensely involved 
in water conservation projects and practices for at least the past two 
decades, and we envision the need for even more programs into the 
future. The current use of our water supplies, in both the agricultural 
and Municipal settings, is simply not sustainable. We are encouraged by 
the resources this Act could bring to the Great Salt Lake Basin.
    Thank you for your efforts in introducing the Great Salt Lake 
Stewardship Act and for your work in advancing it through the 
legislative process.

            Sincerely,

                                            Scot W. Paxman,
                                                General Manager/CEO

                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Shawcroft. I now recognize Mr. 
Gibbons-Fly for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM GIBBONS-FLY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN 
          TUNABOAT ASSOCIATION, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Gibbons-Fly. Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, 
distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify this morning. I am here to express the 
strong support of the American Tuna Boat Association and its 
members for passage of H.R. 1792 to amend the South Pacific 
Tuna Treaty Act to reflect amendments to the treaty adopted in 
2016.
    The 2016 amendments represent years of hard-fought 
negotiations to improve the operational conditions and 
flexibility for the fleet, some of which can only be realized 
after the necessary amendments to the implementing legislation 
are in place.
    As just one example, Mr. Chairman, the treaty previously 
applied throughout wide areas of the high seas in the Western 
and Central Pacific. The 2016 amendments removed the high seas 
from under the treaty, which now applies only within waters 
under the jurisdiction of the Pacific Island parties. And yet, 
years later, U.S. law and regulations still include the high 
seas under the treaty, meaning our vessels cannot fish in these 
high seas areas without a treaty license. Without the option to 
fish without a treaty license, our position in negotiations 
with the Pacific Island States is significantly weakened, and 
we have been compelled to accept terms to which we would 
otherwise not have agreed.
    H.R. 1792 resolves this and other conflicts, and its 
passage will provide the fleet with greater operational 
flexibility, clarity, and security as envisioned at the time 
the 2016 amendments were negotiated. This is important, Mr. 
Chairman, because our industry is struggling to survive.
    In the past 3 years, the U.S. tuna purse seine fleet has 
dropped from 34 vessels to just 13 vessels operating today. The 
remaining vessels supply the vast majority of the tuna being 
processed in American Samoa, and otherwise support the local 
economy there.
    Mr. Chairman, I have submitted with my written testimony a 
document prepared by the authorities in American Samoa that 
clearly demonstrate the overwhelming dependence of the economy 
of American Samoa on the tuna industry. Yet, the American 
Samoa-based fleet faces a number of challenges that risk 
further reductions in the number of vessels.
    In particular, the fleet operates on an increasingly uneven 
playing field with respect to its international competitors, in 
particular, China. China and other flag states can exempt their 
vessels from a range of international regulatory requirements 
by reflagging or entering into charter arrangements with 
Pacific Island States who themselves are exempt from these 
requirements.
    And yet, although the underlying convention requires that 
participating territories, such as American Samoa, be afforded 
the same treatment as the Pacific Island States, the American 
Samoa-based fleet is not treated in the same way, creating a 
vastly disproportionate burden on the tuna-dependent economy of 
American Samoa.
    Moreover, Mr. Chairman, maintaining an active and viable 
U.S. tuna purse seine fleet operating in the strategically 
important Central Pacific Ocean is a critical counterbalance to 
China's growing influence across the region. China understands 
that building commercial and industry ties is the single-most 
important vector for political and economic engagement with the 
Pacific Island States, and China has focused strategically on 
developing direct commercial ties with several Pacific Island 
States through investments in the fisheries sector. As a 
result, the U.S. tuna purse seine fleet operating under the 
treaty contributes not only to the United States economy and to 
the economy of American Samoa, but to regional food security, 
national security, and other vital national interests.
    The fleet also provides several additional sets of eyes and 
ears across vast reaches of the Pacific Ocean. The full 
implementation of the treaty amendments, as reflected in H.R. 
1792 will not address all of the challenges facing the 
industry, but it will be one important step in the right 
direction.
    Finally, Mr. Chairman, the treaty has always received 
strong bipartisan support. H.R. 1792 itself represents a 
bipartisan effort by Committee members Representative Radewagen 
of American Samoa and Representative Case of Hawaii, and we 
very much appreciate their leadership in moving this 
legislation forward.
    We urge this Committee and the Full House to pass this 
legislation in the most expeditious manner possible. Thank you 
for your consideration. I would be happy to take any questions 
you may have.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Gibbons-Fly follows:]
Prepared Statement of William Gibbons-Fly, Executive Director, American 
                          Tunaboat Association
                              on H.R. 1792

    Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, distinguished members of 
the Committee, I am William Gibbons-Fly, Executive Director of the 
American Tunaboat Association (ATA). ATA represents the owners and 
operators of the U.S. flag tuna purse seine vessels operating in the 
Pacific Ocean under the South Pacific Tuna Treaty, the last true 
``distant water fishing fleet'' operating under U.S. flag. ATA members 
are multi-generational, family-owned businesses with a long and storied 
history as an important part of the U.S. fishing industry.
    I am here today to express our strong support for passage of H.R. 
1792, to amend the South Pacific Tuna Treaty Act of 1988 to reflect 
amendments to the Treaty adopted in 2016 and to which the Senate 
provided overwhelming bipartisan support for advice and consent to 
ratification in 2022. Passage of the amendments in H.R. 1792 is vitally 
important for the U.S. fleet. The 2016 amendments to the Treaty 
represent years of hard-fought negotiations to improve the operational 
conditions and flexibility for the fleet, some of which can only be 
realized after the necessary amendments to the implementing legislation 
are in place.
    The governments that are party to the Treaty, including the United 
States, have been applying many of the Treaty amendments provisionally 
under a Memorandum of Understanding adopted concurrently with the 
amendments themselves. However, in the absence of U.S. amendments to 
the implementing legislation, key provisions of the domestic regulatory 
regime continue to reflect aspects of the Treaty prior to the 2016 
amendments being adopted. As a result, since 2017 the fleet has been 
operating in a kind of ``limbo,'' with conflicts between certain 
operational conditions in the amended Treaty, and those reflected under 
the domestic regulatory regime.
    As just one example, Mr. Chairman, the Treaty previously defined a 
``Treaty Area'' and a ``Licensing Area,'' both of which included large 
areas of high seas throughout the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. 
The 2016 Treaty amendments removed the definition of ``Treaty Area'' 
and modified the definition of ``Licensing Area'' to include only the 
waters under the jurisdiction of the Pacific Island Parties to the 
Treaty. And yet, U.S. law and regulations still include the high seas 
in the Treaty and Licensing Areas. As a result, our vessels still 
cannot fish in these high seas areas without a Treaty License, even 
though the high seas have not been covered under the Treaty since the 
end of 2016. With no alternative to fish without a Treaty License, our 
position during negotiations with the Pacific Island States is 
significantly weakened and we have been compelled to accept terms to 
which we would otherwise not have agreed.
    H.R. 1792 resolves this and other conflicts, and its passage will 
provide the fleet with greater operational flexibility, clarity and 
security.
    This is important, Mr. Chairman, because our industry is struggling 
to survive. In the past three years, the U.S. tuna purse seine fleet 
has been reduced from 34 vessels to just 13 vessels operating today. 
The remaining vessels supply the vast majority of the tuna being 
processed in American Samoa and otherwise support the local economy 
there by utilizing a range of goods and services provided by local 
businesses. The economy of American Samoa is overwhelmingly dependent 
on the tuna industry and the related service industries that support 
both the StarKist facility and the vessels based there. The future of 
the U.S. purse seine fleet and the future of American Samoa are 
inextricably and undeniably linked. I have attached to this testimony a 
recently prepared document that makes the highly interdependent nature 
of this relationship abundantly clear.
    And yet, the American Samoa-based fleet faces a number of 
challenges that risk further reductions in the number of vessels 
operating in the region. These include a combination of domestic 
regulatory requirements, increasingly onerous terms and conditions for 
access to fishing in the waters of the Pacific Island States, and 
increased foreign competition. In particular, Mr. Chairman, the fleet 
operates on an increasingly uneven playing field with respect to its 
international competitors, in particular China. On one hand, China and 
other flag states are able to exempt their vessels from a range of 
international regulatory requirements by reflagging or entering into 
charter arrangements with Pacific Island States who themselves are 
exempt from these requirements. And yet, although the underlying 
Convention requires that ``Participating Territories'' such as American 
Samoa be afforded the same treatment as the Pacific Island States, the 
America Samoa-based fleet is not treated in the same way, creating a 
vastly disproportionate burden on the tuna dependent economy of 
American Samoa and people who depend on the industry for their 
livelihood.
    On the other hand, Chinese flag tuna vessels figure prominently in 
many global reports on Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) 
fishing as well as the use of forced labor, large government subsidies 
to the fisheries sector, and other factors. Although these practices 
directly undermine the conservation objectives of the United States and 
various international fisheries management regimes, they also provide 
Chinese fisheries products, tuna and otherwise, with an inherent 
competitive advantage in the marketplace with which is increasingly 
difficult for our industry to compete.
    Moreover, Mr. Chairman, maintaining an active and viable U.S. tuna 
purse seine fleet operating under the Treaty in the strategically 
important central Pacific Ocean is a critical counterbalance to China's 
growing influence across the region. China has focused strategically on 
developing direct commercial ties with several Pacific Island States 
through investments in the fisheries sector, both through the 
activities of its vessels as well as shoreside investments. China 
understands that building commercial and industry ties is the single 
most important vector for political and economic engagement with the 
Pacific Island States.
    The Treaty not only provides access for U.S. vessels to fish 
throughout the region but is an increasingly important point of 
engagement between the United States government and the Pacific Island 
States on a wide range of economic and maritime security issues. As a 
result, the purse seine fleet operating under the Treaty contributes 
not only to the United States economy and, especially the American 
Samoan economy, but to regional food security, national security, and 
other vital national interests. The fleet also operates as several 
additional sets of ``eyes and ears'' across vast reaches of the Western 
and Central Pacific Ocean. The full implementation of the Treaty 
Amendments through the enactment of this legislation will not address 
all of the challenges facing the industry, but it will be an important 
step in the right direction as we work to ensure these continuing 
contributions to fundamental U.S. interests in the region.
    Finally, Mr. Chairman, the Treaty has always received broad 
bipartisan support and we would not expect passage of the legislation 
to be controversial. As noted at the outset, this bipartisan support 
was clearly reflected in the April 2022 hearing in the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee to consider the 2016 amendments. Likewise, the vote 
of the full Senate for advice and consent to ratification was without 
objection. H.R. 1792 itself represents a bipartisan effort by Committee 
Members Rep. Amata Radewagen of American Samoa and Rep. Ed Case of 
Hawaii and we very much appreciate their efforts to move this forward.
    We urge this Committee and the full House to pass this legislation 
in the most expeditious manner possible.
    Thank you for your consideration. I am happy to answer any 
questions you may have.

                               ATTACHMENT

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



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

    STATEMENT OF GENEVIEVE GENEST, DONOR RELATIONS MANAGER, 
             GALVESTON BAY FOUNDATION, KEMAH, TEXAS

    Ms. Genest. Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Grijalva, and 
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 
provide testimony to the House Natural Resources Subcommittee 
on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries. My name is Genevieve Genest, 
and I am the Donor Relations Manager for the Galveston Bay 
Foundation, GBF, a non-profit working across the Houston-
Galveston, Texas region since 1987 to preserve and enhance 
Galveston Bay as a healthy and productive resource for 
generations to come.
    I have served at GBF for 7 years, and I am here today to 
express my organization's support for H.R. 2950, the Coastal 
Habitat Conservation Act of 2023, which would authorize the 
Fish and Wildlife Service Coastal Program.
    GBF works in science-based program areas, including habitat 
restoration, land conservation, education, advocacy, and water 
protection, through which we proudly partner with recreational, 
commercial, governmental, and industrial user groups, including 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to find lasting solutions to 
the challenges confronting our shared resource: Galveston Bay.
    GBF is also a member of Restore America's Estuaries, an 
alliance of 10 coastal restoration organizations around the 
country working to create more resilient coastal communities by 
protecting estuary and habitats to enhance the ecosystem, 
economic and national security benefits they provide. Many of 
these organizations are also beneficiaries and partners of the 
Coastal Program.
    For over two decades, the coastal program has been a key 
partner for GBF, both as a reliable source of financial support 
and a powerful tool for accessing and leveraging additional 
funding. Over the years, the Coastal Program has invested over 
$570,000 in GBF projects, and leveraged $25 million in partner 
contributions to help GBF successfully restore and protect over 
8,000 acres of coastal habitat to the Galveston Bay ecosystem 
and economy.
    Galveston Bay is Texas' largest bay and seventh largest in 
the United States. Its watershed is home to over 14 million 
Americans. The Bay Region supports a third of fisheries in 
Texas, billions of dollars in economic activity, and 40 percent 
of the United States' base petrochemical capacity as the 
location of the largest container port in the Gulf of Mexico, 
the Port of Houston.
    As an estuary, Galveston Bay is one of the world's most 
productive ecosystems. Its habitats, like oyster reef and 
wetlands, provide numerous ecosystem services to the community 
such as outdoor recreation, tourism, enhanced water quality, 
reduced property loss, and nurseries for marine and wildlife 
species. Plus, many studies show that healthy, intact 
ecosystems in regions prone to tropical storms and hurricanes 
like Galveston Bay can reduce the impact of flooding and storm 
surge, saving lives and millions of dollars. Therefore, coastal 
habitat and economic investments made through the Coastal 
Program are also investments in protecting people and coastal 
resiliency.
    Developed in 1985, the Coastal Program protects, conserves, 
and restores coastal ecosystems with a primary focus on 
voluntary habitat conservation efforts on public and private 
lands through partnerships with various organizations, 
landowners, and agencies. To make this work happen, the Coastal 
Program offers much more to GBF and our partners than just 
dollars. Staff help foster collaboration and guide project 
planning, and the program is an invaluable go-to resource for 
expertise, technical assistance, and strategic advice 
throughout the life of many projects, even when program funds 
are not directly involved.
    In total, the program has engaged over 8,200 conservation 
partners to complete more than 4,900 conservation projects, 
improve 600,000 acres, protect another 2.3 million acres of 
priority habitat, and help downlist at least 15 species.
    One of many examples of this partnership's success is GBF's 
Moses Lake Shoreline Protection Project, which has protected 
5,000 feet of eroding shoreline and restored 110 acres of 
wetland and oyster habitat in Galveston Bay. We designed a rock 
breakwater to allow marsh grass to take root and grow along the 
shoreline, creating habitat, improving flood resilience, 
benefiting Federal trust species, and supporting the region's 
commercial fishing industry and recreational opportunities.
    After completion, GBF organized marsh planting events that 
engaged local students, community members, and corporate 
volunteers in the process of restoring all 110 acres. None of 
this would have been possible without the Coastal Program's 
technical guidance, partner development, and financial support, 
which in turn helped GBF secure an additional $3 million for 
this project.
    I personally planted some of the marsh grass at this now-
flourishing project site near my hometown, and have 
participated in and seen firsthand the positive impact of many 
of GBF's successful and beneficial restoration projects 
supported by the Coastal Program.
    Galveston Bay Foundation and our partners would like to 
thank Ranking Member Huffman and Representative Gonzalez-Colon 
for their leadership on this important issue. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Genest follows:]
   Prepared Statement of Genevieve Genest, Donor Relations Manager, 
                        Galveston Bay Foundation
                              on H.R. 2950

Introduction
    Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the 
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony to the 
House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries. 
My name is Genevieve Genest, and I am the Donor Relations Manager for 
the Galveston Bay Foundation (GBF) in the Houston--Galveston Region.
    I am here today to express my organization's support for H.R. 2950, 
the Coastal Habitat Conservation Act of 2023 and encourage the Members 
of this subcommittee to support it, as well.
    GBF is a nonprofit that has served as the guardian of Galveston Bay 
since 1987. Our mission is to preserve and enhance Galveston Bay as a 
healthy and productive place, so it remains fishable and swimmable for 
generations to come. Our core programs areas include habitat 
restoration, land conservation, education, advocacy, and water 
protection. Through these programs we work across a 5-county area to 
facilitate a true cross-section of Bay interests by collaborating with 
recreational, commercial, and industrial users to find creative, 
inclusive, and forward-thinking solutions to the challenges confronting 
Galveston Bay.
    Galveston Bay is the largest Bay in Texas and the 7th largest in 
the United States, covering 600 square miles. Its watershed covers 
24,000 square miles and is home to more than 14 million Americans, 
including both Houston and Dallas. The Galveston Bay region supports 
billions of dollars in economic activity and 40% of the United States's 
base petrochemical capacity as the location of three major ports, 
including the port of Houston, the largest container port in the Gulf 
of Mexico.
    As an estuary, Galveston Bay is one of the world's most productive 
ecosystems. Its coastal habitats provide numerous benefits to the 
greater Houston-Galveston community, such as supporting \1/3\ of 
Texas's fisheries industry, enhancing water quality through natural 
filtration processes, preventing property loss from erosion, providing 
flood and storm protection, and sustaining recreational and tourism 
industries that support more than 5,000 jobs.
    Through actions and partnerships, including with the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, and a commitment to sound science and research, GBF 
has protected over 16,000 acres of natural lands and engaged tens of 
thousands of community members through volunteer and public outreach 
opportunities.
    Additionally, Galveston Bay Foundation is a member of Restore 
America's Estuaries, an alliance of 10 coastal restoration 
organizations around the country working to protect estuaries, bays, 
and coasts and enhance the value of these areas for the ecosystem, 
economic, and national security benefits they provide. Many of these 
organizations are also beneficiaries and supporters of the Program I'm 
here to discuss.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Coastal Program

    For more than two decades, GBF has worked closely with the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service Coastal Program to restore and protect more 
than 8,000 acres of critical coastal habitat in Galveston Bay. These 
projects support species conservation, habitat connectivity, and create 
more resilient communities. By conserving these habitats, GBF and the 
Service have been able to sustain ecosystem services and functions that 
are critical to coastal communities, including tropical storm 
protection, outdoor recreation, and nurseries for economically 
important fish and wildlife. Through these projects, the Coastal 
Program has invested more than $570,000 and leveraged more than $25 
million in partner contributions for the Galveston Bay ecosystem and 
economy.
    The Coastal Program has been a key partner for GBF both directly as 
a reliable source of financial support and indirectly as a powerful 
tool for accessing and leveraging additional private and public funding 
sources for high priority projects.
    It also offers much more to GBF and our partners than just dollars. 
The Coastal Program has been an invaluable partner throughout the life 
of many projects as a go-to resource for expertise, technical 
assistance, and strategic advice. Program staff help foster 
collaboration among stakeholders and guide the project planning 
process, sometimes even when Coastal Program funds are not directly 
involved. All these services are at the disposal of partner 
organizations like GBF to help translate community needs into project 
ideas and execution.
Moses Lake Shoreline Protection Project (Texas)

    One example of the impact this technical expertise and financial 
support provides can be found at our Moses Lake Shoreline Protection 
Project. Between 2013 and 2015, the Coastal Program uplifted a 
partnership of federal and state agencies and NGOs, including the 
Galveston Bay Foundation and The Nature Conservancy, to construct a 
breakwater to protect 5,000 feet of rapidly eroding shoreline and 
support the restoration of 110-acres of wetland habitat in Moses Lake 
in western Galveston Bay.
    This project included installing a rock breakwater, creating oyster 
reefs, and restoring marsh habitat, all of which provide significant 
benefits to fish and shellfish, migratory and resident waterfowl, and 
shorebirds. The project location is important to the region's 
commercial fishing industry and supportive of a wide range of 
recreational activities, such as fishing and boating, so there was a 
widely acknowledged need and desire to undertake a restoration project 
of this size.
    Additionally, the wetlands in this area had been lost over time due 
to subsidence and erosion, and the breakwater project was designed to 
allow sediment to deposit and accumulate between the protective barrier 
and the shoreline, elevating the bay bottom enough to enable marsh 
grass to take root and restore the ecosystem to a more natural state.
    As a partner, the Coastal Program provided technical support and 
guidance, as well as $125,000 in direct financial support for this 
project. GBF and our partners leveraged this initial investment to 
secure a nearly $3 million National Coastal Wetland Conservation Grant 
for this project.
    Following completion of the breakwater project, GBF was able to 
engage and educate local community and corporate partners in the 
habitat restoration process by organizing several successful volunteer-
based marsh cordgrass plantings. In 2018, volunteers and students 
helped complete the planting of all 110-acres of marsh that will 
promote coastal resiliency, improve water quality, reduce coastal 
erosion and flooding, revitalize oyster reefs, and benefit federal 
trust species including interjurisdictional fish and migratory birds 
for decades to come.
    Additionally, the project success prompted an adjacent private 
landowner to sell 100 acres to GBF to permanently protect wetlands near 
the restoration site in lieu of developing it, furthering the impact of 
the project. None of this would have been possible without financial 
and technical assistance from the USFWS Coastal Program.
    In a region prone to tropical storms and hurricanes, an investment 
along our coast is not just about preserving ecosystems and enhancing 
recreational or commercial opportunities, they're also an investment in 
protecting the people and communities of Galveston Bay. Many studies 
have shown that healthy, intact ecosystems like oyster reefs, seagrass, 
and wetlands substantially reduce the impact of storms--protecting 
property, saving lives, and providing peace of mind.
Oyster Shell Recycling and Reef Restoration

    Additionally, the partnership with the Service has allowed us to 
expand our oyster shell recycling and reef restoration programs and 
engage public and private landowners to restore shoreline and protect 
lives and livelihoods from storms and flooding while also improving 
water quality. Galveston Bay used to supply 80% of Texas's oysters, but 
in the past 15 years, the Bay has lost more than 60% of its natural 
oyster reefs due to damage from overharvesting, trawling, disease, and 
natural disasters, like hurricanes. Healthy oyster populations are 
critical to the health of Galveston Bay as a whole. They filter 
pollution and provide shelter, food and breeding ground for baby 
oysters, crabs, shrimp, fish and other wildlife, and importantly, 
support the thriving commercial seafood industry upon which thousands 
of individuals and businesses depend.
    In 2012, GBF launched an Oyster Shell Recycling Program which 
currently partners with over 30 local Houston-Galveston restaurants to 
collect their shucked oyster shells and return them to Galveston Bay as 
new oyster reef. To date, the program has diverted over 1,000 tons of 
oyster shells from landfills.
    Much of the growth and success of our shell recycling efforts can 
be attributed to the Coastal Program. Coastal Program funding has 
enabled GBF to engage public and private partners, community and 
corporate volunteers, and students in three oyster reef construction 
and restoration projects located in popular fishing areas that have 
experienced historical habitat and shoreline degradation over the 
years.
    Coastal Program funds aided with collection and transportation of 
recycled oyster shells to the project sites. Over the course of the 
project, a total of 4,000 community and student volunteers helped build 
2,200 feet of oyster reef to act as a natural breakwater for eroding 
shorelines, create new oyster habitat, and facilitate marsh 
restoration.
    In total, funding and support received through the Coastal Program 
helped return 760 tons of oyster shells to Galveston Bay and restore 
32,000 square feet of critical oyster reef habitat.
H.R. 2950--Coastal Habitat Conservation Act of 2023

    The Coastal Habitat Conservation Act of 2023 would help build upon 
the successful record of accomplishment of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service Coastal Program. The Program was developed in 1985 to protect, 
conserve, and restore coastal ecosystems with a primary focus on 
voluntary habitat conservation efforts on public and private lands 
through partnerships with various agencies, organizations, and 
landowners. Almost 40 years later, the Service works in 24 priority 
coastal areas and has engaged an extensive portfolio of diverse 
partners for the protection of priority species and habitats. In total, 
the Program has engaged more than 8,200 conservation partners to 
complete more than 4,900 conservation projects, improved more than 
600,000 acres, and protected another 2.3 million acres of priority 
habitat and supported the downlisting of at least 15 species.
    In 2022 alone, the Coastal Program provided $4.3 million in support 
of 185 projects. This investment was leveraged with $39.5 million in 
partner contributions; a staggering 1:9 ratio. The 223 project partners 
protected more than 31,000 acres of coastal habitat and restored an 
additional 13,000 acres.
    However, funding for the Coastal Program has remained stagnant 
since at least 2014, with annual appropriations hovering between $13 
and $14 million. H.R. 2950 would authorize and provide a much-needed 
boost for this critical program through fiscal year 2028, with funding 
increases to occur gradually over the five-year period. This funding 
increase would serve to expand existing partnerships, engage new 
partners, and further the mission of this highly effective, 
cooperative, voluntary program. Although funding has remained stagnant, 
demand from potential partners and for worthy and increasingly 
necessary projects has only increased, and approved priority coastal 
areas, such as the Columbia River Estuary and Georgia coast, remain 
unstaffed and under engaged despite the demand and need for projects 
and expertise.
    With the passage of this proposed authorization, and increased 
funding, Galveston Bay Foundation and the countless partners of the 
Coastal Program could make serious headway towards further protecting 
vulnerable coastal ecosystems and communities in the face of severe 
storms, sea level rise, and pollution while also improving the economic 
output of the many industries that rely on them.
    We would like to thank Ranking Member Huffman and Representative 
Gonzalez-Colon for their leadership on this important legislation and 
we encourage the members of this Subcommittee to approve this needed 
authorization and funding increase.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Ms. Genest, and I now recognize Mr. 
Atkinson for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF SETH ATKINSON, QUILLBACK CONSULTING, SANTA CRUZ, 
                           CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Atkinson. Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, 
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify today. My name is Seth Atkinson. I am a fishery policy 
consultant and attorney, and my clients include both 
conservation and commercial fishermen. My comments today are on 
H.R. 4587, the red snapper legislation which would prohibit 
fishery managers in the South Atlantic from using area-based 
management until a study known as the Great Red Snapper Count 
is complete.
    First and most broadly, this bill conflicts with how 
science is used in fishery management under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. Under that law, managers must base their decisions 
on the best scientific information available. And the key word 
here is available. Science is an ongoing process in which data 
are always coming in, methodologies change, and new techniques 
are developed, and each iteration tends to represent the 
cutting edge of knowledge until newer science comes along.
    Requiring managers to act on the best scientific 
information available is a key part of the law because it 
ensures management can actually proceed on a common factual 
basis. Without it, fishery management would be paralyzed by 
arguments over what the basic facts are.
    Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act framework, it is not 
appropriate to ignore the current best scientific information 
available and wait for some future study in hopes of getting 
different results. Here the best scientific information 
available is from SEDAR 73, the stock assessment for red 
snapper completed in 2021. That assessment indicated the red 
snapper population is recovering, and its abundance is at high 
levels. That is excellent news.
    The assessment also indicated, however, that the vast 
majority of red snapper are young fish. Older red snapper 
contribute much more to stock productivity. So, despite the 
high abundance numbers, the stock is not yet rebuilt. Managers 
essentially need to allow enough of these abundant youngsters 
to survive so they can restore the age structure of the stock. 
And this in turn means bringing fishing pressure down, because 
the stock assessment also found that current fishing mortality 
rates are high enough that they constitute over-fishing.
    And over-fishing in this case is being driven by dead 
discards from the recreational sector, which were found in 
recent years to comprise around 83 percent of total catch. That 
is discards plus landings, so 83 percent of all of that. How 
that is possible is because, even when managers close the red 
snapper season, meaning the species cannot be landed, red 
snapper is still caught by fishermen targeting other species in 
the same mixed bottom fish assemblage. It is effectively year-
round open access, only that all the red snapper caught must be 
released, and some of them end up dying.
    Meanwhile, the fishing power of the recreational sector has 
steadily increased in recent decades with coastal population 
growth combined with new technologies, more powerful boats. It 
means both effort and efficiency of this sector are extremely 
high.
    And this is a genuinely difficult management situation. The 
South Atlantic Council and NOAA fisheries are responsible for 
making management decisions under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and 
they will need a range of options available to them. For that 
reason, the prohibition on area-based management in H.R. 4587 
is concerning. It takes a tool out of the toolkit.
    The idea of relying on the Great Red Snapper Count as a way 
to avoid these management challenges also is concerning.
    First, that study won't be completed and integrated into an 
assessment for several more years. Managers have a real 
opportunity now, given the strong year classes recently, to 
shepherd those young fish along and get the stock rebuilt. 
Waiting could mean we lose that opportunity.
    Second, we can't be sure what the Great Red Snapper Count 
will show, and there is a number of scenarios in which it does 
not necessarily help to get the stock declared rebuilt or allow 
for a huge amount more yield. Neither of those are guaranteed 
results from the study.
    And third, the existing management challenges will need to 
be addressed, if not with red snapper today, it will be 
tomorrow with red porgy, black sea bass, great triggerfish, 
which are trending downward or in the same assemblage, and are 
subject to the same recreational fishery.
    In closing, I just note on a basic human level that 
commercial fisherman in the South Atlantic have been subject to 
strict management for decades now, and there was no arbitrary 
suspension of the rules for them, nor should there have been. 
And I know for many that makes the approach of H.R. 4587 
difficult to accept.
    Thank you. I am happy to answer any questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Atkinson follows:]
       Prepared Statement of Seth Atkinson, Quillback Consulting
                              on H.R. 4587

    Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to testify today.
    My name is Seth Atkinson. I am an attorney, and my practice focuses 
on the management of fisheries in federal and state waters. My clients 
include both conservation groups and commercial fishermen. I have 13 
years of experience with fishery management issues from around the 
country, as both a staff attorney at a nonprofit organization and as a 
private consultant and attorney.
    I have been invited to speak today on H.R. 4587, the South Atlantic 
red snapper legislation before this Subcommittee. What that bill would 
do is prohibit the use of area management for South Atlantic snapper-
grouper species until a population estimation exercise known as the 
``South Atlantic Great Red Snapper Count'' is completed, and data from 
that exercise have been incorporated into a formal stock assessment.
    Before I get into the substance of my testimony, I should note that 
I am currently representing commercial fishermen in a lawsuit that 
deals with this same fishery--the South Atlantic snapper-grouper 
fishery--and specifically the red snapper stock, although the issues 
and arguments focus on a somewhat different aspect of management, 
namely the setting of annual catch limits. That case is entitled Slash 
Creek Waterworks et al. v. Raimondo, and the case number is 23-cv-1755 
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. As this is an 
active case, my testimony here will stay limited to H.R. 4587 and the 
associated management issues for South Atlantic red snapper.
1. H.R. 4587 Conflicts with the Magnuson-Stevens Act Process for 
        Bringing Scientific Information into Management
    First and most broadly, the approach proposed in H.R. 4587 is not, 
and should not be, how science is used in fishery management under the 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Specifically, 
managers should not pause action for several years to wait for some 
future scientific study that may give different results.
    Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Regional Fishery Management 
Councils and the National Marine Fisheries Service, or NOAA Fisheries, 
respond to the best scientific information available when managing our 
fishery resources, and they adapt and update fishery management as new 
scientific information becomes available. This approach reflects both 
the realities of the fisheries science process, as well as the Act's 
legal standard governing the use of science.
    Scientific information on fish populations is gathered on a 
continual basis and is synthesized into stock assessments periodically. 
The whole process is dynamic; data are always coming in, methodologies 
change as new techniques are developed or assumptions are revised, and 
each iteration tends to represent the cutting edge of knowledge until 
newer science comes along. That is how the scientific process works.
    The Magnuson-Stevens Act's legal standard is crafted with exactly 
this iterative process in mind. National Standard 2 requires the 
Councils and agency to use the ``best scientific information 
available,'' and the key word here is ``available.'' Information on 
fish populations is never perfect, and, as just noted, it changes over 
time. The National Standard 2 language was designed to acknowledge the 
evolving nature of our scientific understanding, as it requires use of 
what is ``available'' without waiting for some far-off day when perfect 
information arrives. NOAA Fisheries itself has acknowledged as much, 
stating in its regulatory guidelines interpreting National Standard 2 
that ``mandatory management decisions should not be delayed due to 
limitations in the scientific information or the promise of future data 
collection or analysis.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 50 C.F.R. Sec. 600.315(a)(6)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is an essential part of the bargain with fishery management 
under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Nearly everyone ends up frustrated with 
the science at some point, regardless of their priorities and views. 
But the National Standard 2 requirement for best available science 
ensures that management can actually proceed on a common factual basis, 
rather than getting bogged down in endless disagreements. This common 
factual basis is a critical part of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and also 
shows up in a number of other federal natural resource and 
environmental laws.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ See, e.g., 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1533(b)(1)(A) (Endangered Species 
Act); 42 U.S.C. Sec. 300g-1 (Safe Drinking Water Act); 15 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec. 2617, 2625 (Toxic Substances Control Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    So by proposing to put management on hold for a few years while one 
particular scientific study is finished, H.R. 4587 goes against the 
fundamental process for integrating science into management that has 
been hammered out, agreed to, and relied upon in Magnuson-Stevens Act 
management for the last forty-plus years.
2. Area Management May Be an Important Tool and Should Not Be Removed 
        from the Council and NOAA Fisheries' Toolbox

    The next thing to note about the bill is that it needlessly 
precludes the South Atlantic Council and NOAA Fisheries from using 
area-based management in the snapper-grouper fishery. Area management 
can take many forms and be used for different purposes, and it is 
important for managers to be able to turn to this tool when necessary.
    To understand why area-based management could be important here, it 
helps to step back and review the status of South Atlantic red snapper. 
The best available scientific information currently is from SEDAR 73, a 
stock assessment completed by the Southeast Fisheries Science Center in 
2021.\3\ That assessment indicated the red snapper population is 
recovering, and that its abundance is at high levels. This is excellent 
news.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review, SEDAR 73: South 
Atlantic Red Snapper (Mar. 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The assessment also indicated, however, that the vast majority of 
South Atlantic red snapper are young fish.\4\ The reproductive capacity 
of red snapper increases significantly as the fish get older and 
larger, so these young fish, while abundant, contribute relatively less 
to the population's productivity. In technical terms, spawning stock 
biomass is lagging behind abundance, and the stock is still overfished 
and needs to finish rebuilding. Because of this dynamic where older 
fish contribute more to productivity, rebuilding for South Atlantic red 
snapper means allowing the age structure to recover--such that a higher 
proportion of individuals in the population are from the older age 
classes. And for a species that can live over fifty years, this can 
take a while.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ See, e.g., id. Section II, at 100 (Figure 14, displaying age 
class contributions to total abundance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is not just a matter of waiting for the age structure to 
recover, though; fishing pressure must be brought down to a level where 
some of today's abundant young fish can survive and get older. Which 
brings us to the other main finding from the SEDAR 73 assessment--that 
current fishing mortality rates are high enough that they are not 
allowing sufficient numbers of fish to survive and grow older, and in 
fact, current fishing mortality rates are so high that they constitute 
overfishing.
    In terms of fishery sectors and catch, the commercial fishery 
currently only removes a small amount from the population. SEDAR 73 
data shows commercial landings and discards combined amount to around 
5-6% of total red snapper catch by weight in a given year.\5\ 
Recreational landings also are not large, at around 11% of total catch. 
This makes sense, because only a 2 or 3 day directed recreational 
season has been allowed recently. It is recreational dead discards, 
however, that are sizable: around 83% of total red snapper catch in the 
South Atlantic comes in the form of recreational dead discards. 
Recreational dead discards are high enough, on their own, to drive 
overfishing of this stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ This and subsequent percentages are terminal three-year 
averages from SEDAR 73 estimated landings and discards, by weight, as 
set forth in Tables 20 and 22. See id. at 64, 66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is happening because red snapper is part of a multispecies 
assemblage, which includes several other popular bottomfish species. 
The way South Atlantic management currently works is that even when the 
red snapper season is ``closed,'' meaning red snapper cannot be landed, 
recreational fishermen can still go out and fish for other species in 
the same assemblage, they just have to throw back any red snapper that 
end up on their line. So with year-round open access recreational 
fishing--even charter licenses are unlimited--there are a tremendous 
number of hooks in the water, catching a huge amount of young red 
snapper, and these fish are then thrown back overboard. And what the 
stock assessment has shown is that dead discards are having enough of 
an impact on the population that it is struggling to replenish the 
older age classes.
    And stepping back a bit further, this is all a reflection of the 
fact that recreational fishing in the Southeast has radically changed, 
and today's fishery does not resemble the recreational fishery of the 
1950s and 1960s. It is not a handful of people in skiffs with 
underpowered outboard motors, or perhaps dangling a line off the side 
of a sailboat. Today's recreational fishery is comprised of a 
substantial portion of the coastal population in the Southeast--which 
itself has dramatically increased in past decades--and consists of 
millions of angler trips each year. In the South Atlantic alone, NOAA 
Fisheries estimated over 70 million angler trips were taken in 2020.\6\ 
And many of these involve large fiberglass vessels with multiple 
powerful engines that can reach deep water in a half hour, go straight 
to a favorite reef or rock pile using GPS navigation, and lock in 
position with sophisticated electronic systems that account for 
currents and wind. When there, anglers deploy the latest tackle, bring 
up bottomfish in an extremely efficient manner, and then head back to 
shore where they share tips and photos via social media.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ National Marine Fisheries Service, Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/
SPO-236: Fisheries Economics of the United States 2020, at 137 (Feb. 
2023)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To be clear, none of this is morally wrong, illegal, or otherwise. 
What it does mean, though, is that today's recreational snapper-grouper 
fishery in the South Atlantic is at levels of capitalization and 
participation never seen before. There are so many people out there, 
and so many hooks in the water, that even when red snapper are thrown 
back (or released carefully), the dead discards are enough to drive 
overfishing.
    By now it should be clear that the South Atlantic Council and NOAA 
Fisheries are facing a difficult management situation with red snapper. 
Recent council meetings have had some tough discussions on the topic, 
with vigorous debate over which management approaches should be pursued 
and how to solve the problem. Area management is one potential 
approach; there may be others as well. I will not offer predictions as 
to how the Council and agency will resolve the matter, but I can say 
that the regional councils are typically very hesitant to adopt area 
closures and only do so when absolutely necessary. And for exactly this 
reason, H.R. 4587 is counterproductive: if and when the Council and 
NOAA Fisheries need this tool, it should be there ready for use.
3. Delay Is Not the Answer and May Make Things Worse

    The premise of H.R. 4587 is that an upcoming scientific exercise, 
the South Atlantic Great Red Snapper Count, will provide a more 
favorable view of the status of red snapper and will allow for higher 
catch levels, thereby opening up a longer directed fishing season for 
the recreational sector and making the rebuilding and overfishing 
problems go away. By waiting, the bill suggests, we may be able to 
avoid taking any difficult actions.
    This is not a good approach, unfortunately, for the red snapper 
stock or the broader snapper-grouper fishery.
    As an initial matter, results from the Great Red Snapper Count will 
not be ready for a while. By way of comparison, the Gulf of Mexico's 
Great Red Snapper Count kicked off in 2017, according to the 
Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium,\7\ and scientists are still 
working to integrate its results into the Gulf red snapper stock 
assessment, which is expected to be released next year. Then managers 
will need time to review that assessment and decide on the appropriate 
management response. So even if the South Atlantic process is faster, 
H.R. 4587 still would mean waiting a significant amount of time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium, ArcGIS Story Map: 
Whatever Happened with the Great Red Snapper Count? (May 25, 2023), 
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/d03212c07af94ac79a98c9c3a210270e.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    And waiting means tolerating several more years of a status quo in 
which the vast majority of red snapper yield is wasted as dead 
discards, and which, as far as we can tell, is not even helping the 
stock rebuild its age structure. This is not good policy. Moreover, it 
could mean wasting our best chance to get the South Atlantic red 
snapper stock fully rebuilt. There is no guarantee that recent high 
recruitment levels will continue, and it would be a real failure to 
just delay and do nothing, while some of the strongest year classes in 
history get burned up as dead discards.
    The next important thing to realize is that nobody yet knows what 
the results from the Great Red Snapper Count will show. In terms of 
rebuilding, and getting out of the current overfished status, there are 
a lot of scenarios in which the Great Red Snapper Count does not 
clearly address or solve this problem. As noted above, rebuilding South 
Atlantic red snapper means restoring the stock's age structure. The 
Great Red Snapper Count is expected to produce an absolute abundance 
estimate for red snapper, but it may not include region-wide age 
structure data. And an absolute abundance estimate alone does not 
dictate a conclusion that the stock is rebuilt; if abundance is much 
higher or lower than expected, this will raise questions about 
productivity and whether the current reference points need to be 
revised. Ultimately the stock's overfished or rebuilt status will be 
hammered out in the assessment process and will depend on a number of 
reworked parameters; it is not guaranteed to come out one way or the 
other.
    And in terms of overfishing, the same holds true. Available yield 
is a function of not only current biomass but also productivity, and 
those same productivity parameters just mentioned will need to be re-
worked during the stock assessment process before anyone knows what the 
potential future yield will be. Even if the Great Red Snapper Count 
ends up concluding there are a lot of red snapper hanging out in areas 
of uncharacterized substrate, as was the case in the Gulf, it does not 
necessarily follow that those fish mean more is available to the 
fishery. As the Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium notes in its 
explainer about the Gulf study, dramatically increasing catch levels 
based on abundance in unfished areas creates a risk that ``too many 
fish would be removed from th[e] commonly fished areas.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Another view on what sustainable yield from a rebuilt red snapper 
stock may look like comes from the current stock assessment. Based on 
SEDAR 73, current catch levels are likely around, or even above, the 
eventual sustainable yield amounts for a fully rebuilt stock.\9\ This 
would mean that even when red snapper is fully rebuilt, it is not clear 
how much more yield will be available than is already being taken from 
the population today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ See SEDAR 73, Section II at 71 (Table 27, listing reference 
points, including current estimate of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) 
as approximately 404,000 pounds of landed catch per year); id. at 64 
(Table 22, listing estimated landings by year, with terminal three-year 
average exceeding the MSY estimate). Note also that the calculated MSY 
value contains a lower assumed dead discard component than currently is 
occurring, so while total catch levels at MSY are not explicitly 
stated, they are likely lower than current total catch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For these reasons, waiting and hoping the Great Red Snapper Count 
will solve red snapper's rebuilding status and dramatically increase 
available yield is not a great approach. Yield is and will be finite; 
the Great Red Snapper Count will not change that fact. And given trends 
in recreational fishery participation and capitalization, a finite 
amount of yield, even if modestly increased from today's levels, will 
require some management in order to maximize landings, minimize dead 
discards, and meet other management goals. The Council and NOAA 
Fisheries are going to have to wrestle with this and come up with 
solutions, as unpopular as it may be.
    There is also a final pragmatic reason why it is misguided to delay 
at this point: red snapper is not a lone stock in isolation, and there 
are likely to be more problems on the way. Even if the Great Red 
Snapper Count were to solve all the Council's problems with red 
snapper, several other snapper-grouper stocks are facing similar issues 
and will require the same underlying management tangle to be addressed. 
Survey indices are stagnating or declining for several popular target 
stocks like gag grouper, gray triggerfish, red porgy, and black sea 
bass. Some of these stocks do not appear to have the resilience of red 
snapper, and they are struggling under the current open-access, 
unconstrained recreational fishery. When they do hit the overfished 
threshold and require rebuilding, it is going to be a substantially 
worse situation for the Council to work with than red snapper, because 
rebuilding margins will be slim and there will be a lot less to go 
around. It is better to deal with these management problems today, 
under the more generous terms of red snapper, than to ignore them and 
wait for a worse situation to arrive.
4. H.R. 4587 Creates a Real Fairness Problem

    An additional concern here is that this bill represents Congress 
intervening in ordinary fishery management because one particular 
sector faces the possibility of management actions it views as 
unfavorable. Other participants in the South Atlantic snapper-grouper 
fishery have been subject to increasingly strict management for decades 
now, and there was no arbitrary suspension of the rules--nor should 
there have been. Commercial fishermen currently are managed under 
numerical catch limits, with observers and logbooks, such that they are 
accountable for every pound of fish they catch. And that's a good 
thing, from both a conservation and a management perspective. There 
also are aspects of commercial management that fishermen struggle with, 
like extremely low trip limits that constrain their access to valuable 
species, a 2-for-1 permit requirement that lowers the value of their 
permits and continues to reduce the size of the commercial fishery past 
its intended goal, and others. Despite all of this, they play by the 
rules, they work with the Council and NOAA Fisheries, and they keep 
coming back to the table--which makes the kind of one-off 
exceptionalism presented by H.R. 4587 difficult to accept.

    In closing, I would like to reiterate that H.R. 4587 is 
inconsistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act's scientific process. The 
fishery in question needs management, and removing tools from the 
toolbox is counterproductive. Waiting for a future scientific study is 
the wrong approach, and the study in all likelihood is not going to 
solve the management issues facing this fishery. Managers should face 
the challenges now with red snapper, because those same challenges will 
keep coming up, and they will be harder to deal with in future 
scenarios involving other overfished species.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Atkinson. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Graham for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF JACK GRAHAM, CAPTAIN, AFISHIANADO CHARTERS, NAGS 
                      HEAD, NORTH CAROLINA

    Mr. Graham. Hey, guys, thanks for having me. My name is 
Jack Graham. I run a recreational charter boat out of Oregon 
Inlet Fishing Center, fishing the Gulf Stream waters off the 
coast of North Carolina's Outer Banks. I am here on behalf of 
H.R. 4051.
    I am one captain of a fleet of about 75 boats and one of 
the youngbloods in my fleet. I work along some of the most 
renowned and respected skippers on the planet, with over 500 
years of cumulative experience. That is probably a conservative 
estimate, a lot of really good fishermen in my fleet. Most of 
us spend 125 to 200 days a year on the water, and I really 
appreciate the invitation to come give testimony about a 
phenomenon that has been occurring and exponentiating over the 
past 10 years.
    That phenomenon is an astounding depredation of yellowfin 
and bigeye tuna by what we believe is one of the most 
significant biomasses of large sharks in existence on the 
planet. The testimony I am going to give here today is, by the 
numbers, conservative in nature, as I don't want to give the 
impression that I am telling a fish story. All the same, I 
think you will all find this testimony interesting and, to be 
quite honest, incredible.
    To begin, I would like to congratulate the scientific 
community and legislators who took initiative in conservation 
efforts so many years ago. If what we are seeing on our 
coastlines isn't proof that conservation works, I don't know 
what is.
    Just the other day, by my rudimentary calculations, there 
were boats fishing in 300 feet of water all the way out to 
3,000 feet of water, and all had multiple encounters and 
depredation issues with large sharks feeding on a multitude of 
species of fish on the end of their lines. I used my GPS and 
drew a square from the northernmost boats to the southernmost 
boats, and came up with a conservative area of approximately 
300 square miles.
    The species of sharks varied somewhat, depending on depth, 
but the most common encounters are with dusky greater 
hammerheads, silky spinner, and sandbar sharks. And interesting 
side note, a little bit of research I have done tells me that 
spinner sharks are coastal sharks. However, we routinely 
encounter them in over 1,000 feet of water, 35 to 40 miles off 
the coast.
    I have traveled all over the world to fish and dive, and I 
have seen just about every square inch of Australia's Great 
Barrier Reef. And myself nor my colleagues have seen anything 
that comes close to what we are seeing in our home waters.
    I mentioned the square mileage, and that was just one day, 
but I feel I need to stress this is a daily occurrence. From 
about the middle of April through September we take bookings 7 
days a week, and will fish days, and days, and days in a row if 
weather permits.
    For several years, I was trying to get in touch with folks 
in the scientific community. I had gone to a meeting to protest 
offshore drilling off our coast, and raised the question of 
concern for the effects said drilling and seismic testing would 
have on our marine mammal life. We sometimes catch tuna around 
the pilot whales, so I was concerned not only for the mammals 
themselves, but for the tunas my customers enjoy catching.
    Anyway, a whale scientist from Duke University approached 
me to thank me for my line of questioning. I, in turn, asked 
him to point me to some folks in the scientific community who 
may be interested in what we were seeing off the coast. He did, 
and I made several calls, several e-mails, and I received a 
little bit of feedback, but was never able to garner the 
interest I felt like this area deserves.
    I will put it this way: Shark Week has absolutely nothing 
on what we are seeing off the coast of North Carolina right 
now.
    The reason I am telling you this story is because for years 
I took records of the depredation happening on a daily and 
monthly basis out of my marina. My method was fairly simple. 
Our marina offers a fish cleaning service. Each day they pick 
up each boat's fish and weigh them. The customer pays by the 
pound. By knowing how many tuna were caught that day, I was 
able to calculate the average size tuna brought to the docks 
each day. I would then talk to the other boats, ask them how 
many tuna they caught versus how many tuna were eaten by 
sharks. In the beginning, it was about half and half. So, if I 
hooked 20 tuna, I would get, on average, 10 to the boat. Some 
days we are worse. Very rarely were they better.
    For months on end, our fish cleaning service was cleaning 
in the neighborhood of 10,000 pounds of tuna per day. Again, 
this is average. There were days where we cleaned as much as 
15,000 to 18,000 pounds in one day. But if we used just a 
conservative estimate of 10,000 pounds of tuna per day, say 
factor in 5 days per month of weather days where the fleet 
didn't go fishing, that still adds up to about 250,000 pounds 
of tuna depredation in one month. And that is just my small 
marina with about 25 boats. There are about 75 boats in the 
fleet.
    So, including charter boats from three other marinas, a 
fairly active recreational private sector, 250,000 pounds is 
more than likely much higher. And this is happening for months, 
and months, and months on end. Of course, now we can only get 
about 1 in 10 fish, not 50 percent.
    In addition to the recreational industry, my community 
prided itself in having one of the most successful dayboat 
hooking lines sustainable fleets off the East Coast. Hook and 
line fishermen catching bigeye and yellowfin tuna that not only 
supported our local restaurants, but were shipped out to fish 
markets all over the country. Contrary to what you may have 
seen on TV, bigeye tuna is the most valuable tuna per pound in 
the United States, and our area was responsible for 
distributing tons and tons of sustainable hook-and-line caught 
bigeye tuna all over the country.
    That domestically caught fish is now the thing of the past. 
Those boats have been sold or are being used for different 
reasons. I have not seen a commercial hook-and-line tuna boat 
offshore in over 5 years.
    Thanks, guys. I am happy to answer any questions you have.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Graham follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Jack Graham, Captain, Afishianado Charters
                              on H.R. 4051

    My name is Jack Graham. I run a recreational charter boat out of 
the Oregon Fishing center, fishing the gulf stream waters off the coast 
of North Carolina's Outer Banks. I'm one captain in a fleet of about 75 
boats, one of the ``young bloods'' in my fleet. I work alongside some 
of the most renowned and respected skippers on the planet with over 500 
years of cumulative experience. Most of us spend 125-200 days per year 
on the water. I appreciate the invitation to come give testimony about 
a phenomenon that has been occurring, and exponentiating, over the past 
10 years. That phenomenon is an astounding depredation of yellowfin and 
bigeye tuna by what we believe is one of the most significant biomasses 
of large sharks in existence on the planet. The testimony I am about to 
give here today is, by the numbers, conservative in nature, as I do not 
want to give the impression I am telling a ``fish story.'' All the 
same, I think you all will find this testimony interesting, and to be 
quite honest, incredible.
    To begin, I would sincerely like to congratulate the scientific 
community and legislators who took initiative in conservation efforts 
so many years ago. If what we are seeing off our coastlines isn't proof 
that conservation works, I don't know what is. Just the other day, by 
rudimentary calculations, there were boats fishing in 300 feet of 
water, all the way out to 3,000 feet of water, and all had multiple 
encounters, and depredation issues with large sharks feeding on a 
multitude of species of fish on the end of their lines. I used my GPS 
and drew a square from the northernmost boats to the southernmost boats 
and came up with an area of, and again conservatively, approximately 
300 square miles. The species of shark varies somewhat depending on 
depth, but the most common encounters are with Dusky, greater 
hammerhead, silky, spinner and sandbar sharks. Interesting side note, 
research tells me spinner sharks are coastal sharks, however we 
routinely encounter them in over 1,000 feet of water 35-40 miles off 
the coast. I have traveled all over the world to fish and dive, I have 
seen just about every square inch of Australia's Great Barrier Reef, 
and I, nor my colleagues have seen anything that comes close to what we 
are seeing in our home waters.
    I mentioned the square mileage, and that was just one day, but I 
feel I must stress this is a daily occurrence. From about the middle of 
April through September, we take bookings 7 days a week and will fish 
days and days in a row if weather permits. For several years I was 
trying to get in touch with folks in the scientific community. I had 
gone to a meeting to protest offshore drilling off our coast and raised 
a question of concern for the effect said drilling and seismic testing 
would have on marine mammal life. We sometimes catch tuna around the 
pilot whales so I was concerned not only for the mammals themselves, 
but for the tuna my customers enjoy catching. Anyway, a whale scientist 
from Duke university approached me to thank me for my line of 
questioning. I in turn asked him to point me to some folks in the 
scientific community who may be interested in what we were seeing off 
the coast. He did. I made several calls, wrote several emails and did 
receive some feedback, but was never able to garner the interest I felt 
like this area deserves. I'll put it this way . . . shark week has 
absolutely nothing on what we are seeing off the coast of North 
Carolina right now. The reason I am telling you this story is because 
for years I took records of the depredation happening on a daily, and 
monthly basis out of my marina. My method was fairly simple. Our marina 
offers a fish cleaning service. Each day they pick up each boat's fish 
and weigh them. The customer pays by the pound. By knowing how many 
tuna were caught that day I was able to calculate the average size tuna 
brought to the docks each day. I would then talk to the other boats and 
ask them how many tuna they caught vs. how many were eaten by sharks. 
In the beginning it was about half and half. So if I hooked 20 tuna I 
would get, on an average day, 10 to the boat. Some days were worse, 
very rarely were they better. For months on end our fish cleaning 
service was cleaning in the neighborhood of 10,000 pounds of tuna per 
day. Again, this is an average, there were days they cleaned as much as 
15-18,000 pounds. But if we use just a conservative estimate of 10,000 
lbs of tuna per day, and factor in 5 days per month for weather days 
where the fleet did not go fishing, that still adds up to a staggering 
250,000 pounds of tuna depredation IN ONE MONTH. This has now been 
going on for over 8 years. And these numbers just reflect my small 
marina of about 25 boats. So including charter boats from 3 other 
marinas, and a fairly active recreational private boat sector, that 
number of 250,000 pounds is more than likely much higher. Only one 
thing has changed over the years, it has gotten worse. Before a 50 
percent average was justifiable, now it's about 1 fish in 10, and many 
days we do not get any.
    In the beginning, economically speaking, depredation created a 
boom. We all thought it would be over soon, that they would move on and 
this was an anomaly. After all, so many captains with so many years 
experience had never seen anything like this in their lifetimes. The 
sharks ate the tuna and bit through our lines. We needed more fishing 
tackle, and the tackle shops were happy to oblige. We fished longer 
days and made longer runs, so we burned more fuel and paid for it at 
the pump. We bought new types of gear, electrical and hydraulic 
equipment to try and find a method that would get the fish to the boat 
faster than the shark could swim. I even bought shark deterrent 
magnets, and worked with a shark deterrent company to try and develop a 
product that would keep them away. But over the last few years a sort 
of gloom has settled in over our fleet. Used to be, during good fishing 
times, small trailer boats would come from all up and down the east 
coast to experience our tuna fishery. Filling hotels, restaurants, 
buying tackle from the shops, and booking vacation rental homes, some 
for entire weeks just to go fishing.
    In addition to the recreational industry, my community prided 
itself in having one of the most successful day boat hook and line 
sustainable tuna fleets on the east coast. Hook and line fisherman 
catching bigeye and yellowfin tuna that not only supported our local 
restaurants, but were shipped out to fish markets all over the country. 
Contrary to what you may have seen on TV, bigeye tuna is the most 
valuable tuna per pound in the United States, and our area was 
responsible for distributing tons and tons of sustainable hook and line 
caught bigeye tuna all over the country. That domestically caught fish 
is now a thing of the past. Those boats have been sold off or are being 
used for other things. I have not seen a commercial hook and line boat 
offshore in over 5 years.
    As for myself and others like me, my business is beginning to feel 
the effects of the depredation. Our fleet takes all kinds of folks from 
all over the country out for a day on the water, most coming in hopes 
of experiencing some of our world class tuna fishing. They arrive armed 
with canning supplies and vacuum packing machines, in hopes of taking 
fresh fish home to somewhere it isn't readily available. It is not a 
cheap trip after a long drive or flight, accommodation and charter fee 
is paid. They are still seeing what would be world class fishing, lots 
of action, lots of strikes, but very little reward for their efforts. 
As a captain I can no longer in good conscience tell my clients we can 
look forward to a fun day on the water. I feel that even if we are 
fortunate enough to hook several tuna, they stand a very slim chance at 
being harvested and processed on board my vessel. Across the board, 
charters are down. And with several factors already working against us 
in the industry, many of us, especially us young captains just starting 
out, fear the depredation of the fish that put our fleet on the map, 
could be our undoing. We have tried just about everything to outsmart 
the sharks, tried to find areas where maybe there aren't as many, but 
it hasn't yet been done with any success.
    This testimony was not meant to be completely gloomy. There is a 
success story here and it should be celebrated. If nothing else, what 
we are seeing off our coast is that conservation truly does work. The 
ocean is capable of healing in ways many could never imagine. In my 
opinion it is a blueprint for aquatic ecosystems all over the world. 
But as we attempt to create a balanced ecosystem we can also create an 
imbalance, fishermen are the greatest tools available to the scientific 
community. We are literally performing an experiment every day we put 
our lines in the water. The ecosystems that exist off our coastlines 
here in the United States are some of the most fascinating anywhere on 
the planet. But I do believe we must adapt, and we must use the 
valuable information we fishermen retain first hand each and every day 
to help create a more balanced and productive ecosystem for future 
generations to enjoy.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Graham. The Chair now recognizes 
Ms. McCawley for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF JESSICA McCAWLEY, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MARINE 
 FISHERIES MANAGEMENT, FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION 
                COMMISSION, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA

    Ms. McCawley. Chairman Bentz and members of the Committee, 
thank you for the invitation to testify today to represent 
Florida as the fishing capital of the world.
    On behalf of FWC, I want to thank Congressman Webster and 
Congresswoman Luna for their service on this Committee, and all 
their efforts to conserve Florida's and the nation's natural 
resources.
    I will focus my remarks on the issue of dead discards and 
how they impact the Atlantic red snapper fishery, why we and 
others oppose NOAA's efforts to implement area closures for the 
entire 55 fish snapper-grouper fishery, and Congressman 
Rutherford's Red Snapper Act.
    Discard mortality is a pervasive issue that impacts the 
stock assessments of Atlantic red snapper, ultimately driving 
fishery management decisions. Discard mortality occurs when 
fish are caught alive, but then die after release. According to 
the recent Atlantic Red Snapper Stock Assessment, the mortality 
rate of fish that are discarded is estimated to range between 
29 and 31 percent, driving the over-fishing status.
    However, discard data are self-reported by anglers, and are 
unvalidated making the magnitude of the discards difficult to 
estimate precisely. No age or length information is available 
to characterize dead discards, which is a problem because that 
information is critical for stock assessment models to function 
reliably. NOAA's own scientists in the South Atlantic Council's 
SSC have indicated that these discard estimates are highly 
uncertain, and should not be used for management.
    Despite these dead discards, the Atlantic red snapper stock 
is rebounding at an astonishing pace, and has reached record-
high abundance levels.
    To reduce discards, NOAA, the South Atlantic Council, and 
FWC have been implementing management actions in recent years. 
The council implemented rules requiring descending devices be 
on board vessels fishing for reef fish, and a single hook 
requirement for all recreational anglers, has expanded 
education and outreach, and is working on a management strategy 
evaluation for the entire snapper-grouper fishery.
    Similarly, FWC implemented reef fish regulations requiring 
anglers to possess a descending device or venting tool in state 
waters, and we are working with fishing groups to improve 
discard education.
    In addition, the congressionally-funded Atlantic Great Red 
Snapper Count is underway, and when completed will provide 
essential data that was previously unavailable to NOAA and 
assessment scientists.
    Finally, NOAA has said it would issue exempted fishing 
permits to improve red snapper management and, if selected, FWC 
would conduct a pilot program aimed at improving recreational 
red snapper data collection and test various management 
strategies.
    Despite all these management efforts and the lack of 
complete, scientifically accurate information about red snapper 
discards, NOAA continues to advocate for an area closure for 
the entire 55 fish complex to end over-fishing of red snapper 
immediately. Florida and other South Atlantic states and an 
overwhelming majority of the fishing community have opposed any 
area or time closures for red snapper because the scientific 
evidence does not support a closure.
    Closures of the entire 55-fish complex based on an 
assessment of one stock are not the answer. A closure would 
have a devastating economic impact from Jacksonville to Key 
West. NOAA estimates the value of recreational fishing of 
Florida's reef fish contributes an output of nearly $384 
million, and supports more than 3,700 jobs. Closing access to 
reef fish off Florida's Atlantic coast would effectively 
eliminate this financial contribution.
    FWC thanks Florida Congressman Rutherford for introducing 
H.R. 4587. This bill would prevent any closures until the 
Atlantic Red Snapper Count results could be incorporated into 
the next assessment. This is a common-sense solution, a 
reasonable position, and gives us a chance to pump the brakes 
on any draconian measures until the best scientific data is 
available for use in management decisions.
    It is important to note that the U.S. Court of Appeals 
ruled recently that NOAA's decision to alter the management of 
a species for the benefit of another using worst-case-scenario 
science was not legal.
    As trustees of the resource, we all must do everything we 
can to help our commercial and recreational fishermen while 
conserving our fisheries' resources for future generations.
    I will conclude my remarks by thanking the Committee again 
for this opportunity.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. McCawley follows:]
 Prepared Statement of Jessica McCawley, Director, Division of Marine 
Fisheries Management, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
                       on H.R. 4587 and H.R. 4051

    My name is Jessica McCawley, and I am the Director of the Division 
of Marine Fisheries Management at the Florida Fish and Wildlife 
Conservation Commission (FWC). In that capacity, I serve as a voting 
member on the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, including 
chair of the Snapper Grouper Committee. From 2018 to 2020, I served as 
chair of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council.
    With more than 7,700 lakes, 12,000 miles of rivers, streams and 
canals, and 8,426 miles of tidal shoreline, Florida is a paradise for 
anglers, boaters, and outdoors enthusiasts. Florida waters are home to 
thousands of species of fish and wildlife. From red snapper to Key's 
lobster, Florida supports thriving fisheries. Florida also is home to 
warm weather, sunshine and friendly people who love ensuring others 
have great fishing experiences. And at the end of the day, we also have 
wonderful restaurants that are willing to cook the bounty harvested 
from a beautiful day spent on Florida's waters.

    A closer look at the numbers reveals an expansive and engaged 
fishing community in Florida that is unrivaled anywhere in the world:

     4.3 million Florida anglers,\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ American Sportfishing Association and Southwick Associates, 
2021. Sportfishing in America: A Reliable Economic Force.

     $13.9 billion economic output from recreational 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            fishing,1

     More than 120,380 jobs supported by recreational 
            fishing,1

     $197 million in commercial food fish dockside sales,\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Fish and Wildlife Research Institute Commercial Landings Data, 
2020.

     More than $6.1 billion in value added economic impact by 
            the commercial seafood industry,\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2020. 
Fisheries Economics of the United States 2020. NOAA Technical 
Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-236.

     76,685 jobs supported by the commercial seafood 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            industry,3 and

     Home to 4,629 total game fish records, which makes Florida 
            the world leader.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ International Game Fish Association, 2021.

    For these reasons, Florida is the Fishing Capital of the World. 
While I am always happy to talk about the many opportunities for 
fishing in Florida, I am here today to discuss South Atlantic red 
snapper and H.R. 4587, the ``Red Snapper Act,'' and briefly comment on 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 4051, the ``SHARKED Act.''

    Before I get to the discussion of H.R. 4587, some background 
information is needed.
    First, while the subject matter today is South Atlantic red 
snapper, it is important to recognize that red snapper is categorized 
as part of the snapper grouper fishery in the South Atlantic. The 
snapper grouper fishery includes 55 bottom- and reef-dwelling fish 
species, including some species that are neither snappers nor groupers 
(e.g., triggerfish and several jack species). Red snapper is an iconic 
fish, and it receives a lot of attention, but red snapper comprises 
only one species within the complex. However, other species, such as 
yellowtail snapper and black grouper, within the complex are popular 
within the fishing community.
    Second, multiple agencies are involved in management of red snapper 
in the South Atlantic, and all are bound by the overall harvest 
allowance established by the Council through the federal Fishery 
Management Plan. FWC manages red snapper harvest in Florida's state 
waters, which is the shoreline out to three (3) nautical miles. The 
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) manages commercial 
and recreational red snapper harvest in South Atlantic federal waters 
(3 nautical miles out to 200 nautical miles off North Carolina, South 
Carolina, Georgia, and East Florida). NOAA Fisheries is the federal 
agency that is responsible for implementing regulations approved by the 
Council, for setting allowable catch levels, and monitoring catch and 
effort throughout the year. In addition, NOAA Fisheries is responsible 
for setting the South Atlantic recreational and commercial red snapper 
seasons annually based on available quota, which was set by Snapper 
Grouper Amendment 43 in 2019.
    Third, a vast majority of the recreational landings of Atlantic red 
snapper comes from Florida. As of June 2023, the total South Atlantic 
red snapper quota (42,510 fish) is allocated between the commercial 
sector (28.07 percent) and recreational sector (71.93 percent). That 
allocation results in the current recreational quota of 29,656 fish and 
the commercial quota of 124,815 pounds whole weight. Quotas set in 
Amendment 43 are based on landings, and not discards, that were 
observed from the 2014 limited red snapper season. This year, this 
quota translated into a federal recreational fishing season of two (2) 
days: July 14 and 15, 2023. However, in Florida state waters, FWC 
allows for year-round harvest of red snapper and the recreational 
regulations include 1 fish per person with a 20-inch minimum size 
limit.
    Fourth, South Atlantic red snapper catch and effort are monitored 
through the federal Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP). In 
2020, FWC expanded our specialized survey called the State Reef Fish 
Survey (SRFS) as a supplement to the federal MRIP survey, with the goal 
of improving data collection for private recreational fishers 
harvesting certain reef fish, including red snapper, off Florida's 
Atlantic Coast. SRFS provides a focus of data collection on effort, 
catch, and discards of recreational anglers who harvest certain reef 
fish from private vessels. SRFS provides more accurate and timely 
estimates of recreational harvest (monthly reporting) compared to MRIP 
(bimonthly reporting), largely because it is a specialized survey 
designed to accommodate how the reef fish fishery operates.
    Due to the success of SRFS, NOAA Fisheries certified the survey and 
other Gulf state surveys for use in management of red snapper in the 
Gulf of Mexico. This has led to the delegation of authority from NOAA 
Fisheries to the State of Florida and other Gulf states to manage Gulf 
red snapper in state and federal waters. Ultimately, the use of SRFS 
for managing Gulf red snapper over the federal MRIP survey has led to 
expanded seasons and fishing opportunities for Florida stakeholders. 
The current Gulf red snapper season is expected to last 70 days in Gulf 
state and federal waters, which is the longest Florida Gulf red snapper 
season since the State took over management. It is our goal that SRFS 
can be used in the Atlantic to improve red snapper management.
    In addition, every year during the federal South Atlantic red 
snapper season, FWC staff significantly expands efforts to conduct 
dockside interviews, obtain biological samples, and better understand 
fishing effort through vessel counts at key inlets. These efforts 
greatly contribute to better characterizing the South Atlantic red 
snapper recreational fishery and provide essential information used in 
the stock assessment process.
    Fifth, discard mortality is a pervasive issue that impacts stock 
assessments of South Atlantic red snapper. This is important because 
discard data have become a key decision point in many fisheries 
management deliberations. Discard mortality occurs when fish are caught 
alive but then die after release. Discards occur commonly when an 
angler is fishing for one species and catching another that cannot be 
retained. In the case of Atlantic red snapper, dead discarded fish is 
thought to comprise a significant percentage of the total (discarded 
fish plus landed fish) removals. The mortality rate of fish that are 
discarded is estimated to range between 28.75 percent to 31.07 percent 
\5\ for Atlantic red snapper. (For example, a discard mortality rate of 
20 percent implies that, of every five fish released, one fish would 
die.) No age or length information is available to characterize dead 
discards, which is problematic because that information is critical for 
stock assessment models to function reliably. Since this data is self-
reported by commercial and recreational fishermen, and discarded fish 
are not available for length or age sampling, the magnitude of the 
number of discards is poorly understood, highly uncertain, unvalidated, 
and difficult to estimate precisely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ SEDAR 73, 2021. SEDAR 73 South Atlantic Red Snapper Stock 
Assessment Report. SEDAR, North Charleston, SC. 194 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The lack of accurate and validated data pertaining to the rate and 
magnitude of discards in the Atlantic red snapper fishery leads to a 
highly uncertain stock assessment. Three sources of information are 
critical to accurate stock assessments: the amount of fish removed by 
fishing, the age of those fish, and independent surveys of abundance. 
For a stock, such as red snapper, where it is presumed that upwards of 
90 percent of the fish removed by fishing are the result of dead 
discards, much of the assessment uncertainty is related to the 
combination of highly uncertain discard estimates and the inability to 
determine the age of those fish. The third information source, 
abundance surveys, is relatively more reliable although information is 
lacking on early life stages. This may contribute to the assessment's 
inability to establish a relationship between spawning fish and their 
offspring. When such relationships cannot be estimated, proxy values 
must be used, but there is no way of knowing if such proxies are truly 
representative of a given stock. In the case of red snapper, the proxy-
based targets for spawning stock biomass suggest the stock is not 
rebuilt, yet the spawning fish in the population are producing higher 
than expected numbers of offspring. The proxy-based target for fishing 
mortality indicates overfishing is occurring, yet the stock has 
steadily increased in biomass and abundance, including the important 
abundance of older, mature fish. Both trap and video surveys of 
abundance show a steep increase since 2011.
    Fisheries managers and scientists who have reviewed the stock 
assessment agree that the overfishing status of Atlantic red snapper is 
driven primarily by high recreational discards. NOAA's own scientists 
and the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Science and 
Statistical Committee have indicated that these estimates of discarded 
fish are highly uncertain and should not be used for management, and 
this is why Amendment 43 established catch levels based on landed fish. 
Despite these projected high numbers of dead discards, red snapper 
abundance and biomass are at record high levels and Atlantic red 
snapper has experienced strong recruitment over the last six years.
    To reduce discards and help rebuild the red snapper fishery, all 
parties involved in red snapper management have taken management 
actions.
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and Red Snapper

    First, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council approved 
Regulatory Amendment 35, which will help reduce dead discards for all 
species in the snapper grouper fishery by implementing a single hook 
requirement for all recreational anglers (private and for-hire) fishing 
from a vessel for snapper grouper species. The goal of this action is 
to help slow the removal rate and reduce catch and discards across the 
entire snapper grouper fishery. Additionally, the Council decided to 
expand its outreach and education program to promote best fishing 
practices to help reduce discard mortality for snapper grouper species. 
This amendment is pending approval by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce. 
Fishery managers from all South Atlantic states (Florida, Georgia, 
South Carolina, and North Carolina) supported these efforts.
    Second, in 2019, the Council approved Snapper Grouper Regulatory 
Amendment 29 that requires anglers fishing in South Atlantic federal 
waters to have a descending device rigged and ready when fishing for 
snapper grouper species. The purpose of this rule was to help increase 
the survival of released reef fish. A descending device is an 
instrument capable of releasing a fish at a depth sufficient for the 
fish to be able to recover from the effects of barotrauma. Barotrauma 
is a pressure-related injury and is one of the top factors that can 
contribute to the increased levels of discard mortality of reef fish. 
The quick change in pressure can cause gas in the swim bladder to 
expand and cause internal organ damage. The frequency and severity of 
barotrauma can vary by species, fishing technique, and water 
temperature. Quick and proper use of barotrauma mitigation tools like 
descending devices and venting tools can help reef fish recover from 
the effects of barotrauma and return to depth; ultimately, reducing 
discard mortality for reef fish.
    Third, the Council has started a management strategy evaluation 
(MSE), scheduled to be completed in 2024, for the snapper grouper 
fishery to find possible management options to reduce the number of 
released fish. The MSE is a conceptual model that will evaluate 
multiple strategies to determine which management options are best 
suited to benefit the collective snapper grouper fishery and accomplish 
the goals of the Council (e.g., decreasing discards, increasing 
harvest).
Descending Device and Venting Tool Requirement in Florida

    Earlier this year, FWC implemented a requirement for private 
recreational anglers fishing for reef fish off a private vessel in 
state waters to possess a descending device or venting tool. 
Additionally, this regulation requires the appropriate use of such a 
tool/device only if releasing a reef fish that is exhibiting symptoms 
of barotrauma. Symptoms of barotrauma include protruding stomach, 
bloated belly, distended intestines, bubbling scales, and bulging eyes.
    Despite the federal regulations for descending devices listed 
above, many fishers remain unaware of federal gear requirements and 
lack confidence in properly using descending devices and venting tools. 
Therefore, outreach and education are critical for generating fisher 
buy-in, proper use of barotrauma mitigation tools and increased 
regulatory compliance. FWC is recognized as a leader in the development 
and promotion of educational programming on best fishing practices and 
empowering the public to help conserve fisheries for the future. FWC 
staff has engaged in a large-scale outreach and education program to 
highlight the importance of barotrauma mitigation tools to the health 
of Florida's reef fish stocks. FWC staff facilitate the Descending 
Device Outreach Coordination Team that is comprised of partners across 
the southeastern United States, including South Atlantic Fishery 
Management Council staff, Return `Em Right, The Nature Conservancy, 
Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, and other state fish and 
wildlife agencies. The purpose of the team is to share outreach 
strategies, coordinate messaging, and streamline efforts across the 
region to promote best fishing practices to help increase survival of 
released reef fish through use of barotrauma mitigation tools.

                               Next Steps

South Atlantic Red Snapper Research Program (aka, the South Atlantic 
        Great Red Snapper Count)

    To have a better understanding of the number of red snapper in the 
South Atlantic, Congress has funded much-needed independent research in 
the South Atlantic. Modeled after the successful Gulf of Mexico Great 
Red Snapper Count, this South Atlantic Red Snapper Research Program, 
aka, the South Atlantic Great Red Snapper Count, is near completion and 
is tasked with estimating the population size, distribution, and 
density of South Atlantic Red Snapper. Research began in the fall of 
2020 and is expected to be finished by fall of 2025. It is expected 
that the results from this comprehensive, independent study will 
provide a better understanding of the red snapper population, be 
incorporated into the upcoming stock assessment, and ultimately improve 
management decisions.
FWC's Atlantic Red Snapper Research

    As a leader in fisheries research and management, FWC continues to 
support innovative recreational data collection along the South 
Atlantic. First, FWC is an active participant in the South Atlantic Red 
Snapper Research Program described above. Secondly, in addition to 
expanding SRFS statewide, FWC is in the process of expanding two 
ongoing projects to increase data collection on red snapper and other 
snapper grouper discards. FWC will be conducting year-round monitoring 
to help validate recreational fishing survey estimates for private 
vessels as well as expanding observer coverage in the charter and 
headboat fishery in northeast Florida to identify hotspots of red 
snapper discards. These expanded projects are expected to start in 
January 2024.
    Lastly, FWC's Fishery Dependent Monitoring Program has been 
conducting fishery-independent hook-and-line sampling of red snapper 
off northeast Florida for the last decade, and funding has been secured 
to continue this critical long-term sampling program for the next 
several years. This is a cooperative research program with the fishing 
industry, including commercial and for-hire participants, and this 
collaborative effort has provided critical information to help document 
the rebuilding of the red snapper stock's age composition.
Exempted Fishing Permit

    Under certain circumstances (e.g., limited testing, data 
collection, etc.), NOAA Fisheries may authorize Exempted Fishing 
Permits (EFP). During 2018 and 2019, FWC tested state management of 
Gulf red snapper through an EFP that eventually led to the delegation 
of private recreational red snapper management in federal waters to 
each of the Gulf states. NOAA Fisheries has indicated that they will 
release a ``Request for Proposals'' and a funding opportunity for an 
EFP to address innovative management strategies that can help address 
discards in the red snapper fishery in the South Atlantic. For the last 
several months, FWC staff have been coordinating with fishery managers, 
scientists, and stakeholders to develop strategies to obtain better 
recreational data on fishing effort and discards to improve management, 
modify angler behavior to reduce discard mortality, and improve harvest 
opportunities. FWC plans to submit a proposal, and if chosen, the EFP 
would be an opportunity for FWC to conduct a pilot program to obtain 
better data for management. Any EFP that NOAA Fisheries ultimately 
approves would likely go in effect for the 2024 fishing season.
State Data Collection

    FWC launched the Gulf Reef Fish Survey in 2015, which ultimately 
expanded to the State Reef Fish Survey in 2020. The key to SRFS's 
success was the establishment of a new requirement for anglers and 
spear fishers that intend to harvest reef fish from a private boat to 
possess the State Reef Fish Angler designation. This designation 
provides the State of Florida with a directory of participants in the 
reef fish fishery statewide so that a special survey may be 
administered. As of June 2023, more than 740,000 individuals possess a 
valid State Reef Fish Angler designation in Florida.
    SRFS consists of two complementary survey components: (1) a mail 
survey of anglers with the State Reef Fish Angler designation, and (2) 
dockside interviews with anglers after they return from fishing. The 
mail survey collects information on recreational fishing trips taken by 
reef fish anglers over the most recent month. During dockside surveys, 
anglers are interviewed in person to collect detailed information on 
the numbers and types of reef fishes caught and released during their 
trip that day. Combined, mail and dockside survey components are used 
to estimate the total number of recreational fishing trips taken each 
month and the total numbers of reef fishes harvested and released by 
anglers fishing from private boats.
    Ultimately, one of the main goals of SRFS is for its use within the 
stock assessment process, which will use more precise and timely data 
for management. In the Gulf of Mexico, this has already occurred for 
the recent Gulf gag grouper assessment and a transition plan is 
currently being implemented for upcoming Gulf red snapper assessment. 
As SRFS continues to improve data collection of reef fish in the South 
Atlantic, FWC will continue to advocate for its use in management and 
future stock assessments of South Atlantic red snapper and other reef 
fish species.
H.R. 4587, the ``Red Snapper Act''

    Introduced by U.S. Rep. John Rutherford (R-FL), the ``Red Snapper 
Act'' would prevent NOAA from promulgating a rule that would force an 
area closure in the South Atlantic for all 55 species in the snapper 
grouper fishery until the results from the current South Atlantic Great 
Red Snapper Count could be incorporated into the next stock assessment. 
FWC supports H.R. 4587 because waiting for independent data to be 
collected and incorporated into a stock assessment is a reasonable and 
common-sense action.
    Any kind of closure would have huge economic implications on the 
South Atlantic. During work on Amendment 35, NOAA Fisheries provided 
analyses and recommended a potential area/time closure from the 
Florida-Georgia line to Cape Canaveral, where the ``red snapper discard 
hotspot'' occurs. As the Florida fisheries management representative on 
the Council, FWC vehemently opposed any management action that would 
disproportionately impact Florida stakeholders. In addition, our 
counterparts in Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina opposed 
(and to this day, continue to oppose) any closure. One of the main 
reasons FWC, the other South Atlantic States, and the fishing community 
have opposed such time/area closures off Florida is due to the poor 
recreational discard data that NOAA Fisheries is using to drive their 
analyses and subsequent recommendations. Recreational discard data are 
self-reported and unvalidated. The Council's own scientific advisors 
have stated that discard data should not be used for management 
purposes. In addition, NOAA Fisheries, in the past, has even cautioned 
the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council on using estimates of 
discards in their management of red snapper. However, recently, NOAA 
Fisheries has pushed to use this self-reported, unvalidated discard 
data to drive management decisions in its efforts to close large areas 
of the South Atlantic to, not just for red snapper, but for the entire 
55-species in the snapper grouper fishery. FWC has vehemently opposed 
these draconian measures and has written letters to the Council and the 
United States Secretary of Commerce about these potentially damaging 
management measures.
    Florida is known as the ``Fishing and Boating Capital of the 
World'', and any hastily imposed and incompletely evaluated area/time 
closures would significantly impact Florida recreational fishers, our 
for-hire industry, communities, and economies. NOAA estimates the value 
of recreational fishing of Florida's reef fishes contributes an output 
of nearly $384 million and supports over 3,700 jobs.\6\ Closing access 
for all 55 snapper grouper species would effectively eliminate this 
financial contribution and job production to Florida's and the nation's 
economy. Closing access to an entire complex to solve the problems of 
one is irresponsible and would devastate local communities and 
economies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ NOAA Coral Conservation Program, 2021. Economic Impact Analysis 
of Recreational Fishing on Florida Reefs. NOAA Technical Memorandum 
CRCP 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, all the for-hire industries, bait shops, fuel 
stations, restaurants, hotels, and processors up and down Florida's 
east coast would be hurt economically by a closure. Any sort of 
potential closure could result in potential damage to the credibility 
of the federal fishery management process. Public trust is an essential 
part of being able to effectively manage natural resources. FWC 
understands that difficult decisions sometimes need to be made. 
However, these decisions should always be based on accurate and precise 
scientific data that comprehensively consider the biological, 
ecological, social, and economic effects. Results from the South 
Atlantic Great Red Snapper Count will provide essential data, 
previously unavailable to NOAA Fisheries and stock assessment 
scientists, to better characterize red snapper abundance in the South 
Atlantic. For the sake of responsible management and public trust in 
the management process, it is imperative that results from the South 
Atlantic Great Red Snapper Count are included in the upcoming red 
snapper stock assessment prior to considering area closures driven by 
poor discard data. Distrust can turn into poorer data being collected, 
ultimately putting the management in worse shape.
    The last time NOAA Fisheries attempted to use faulty data to 
support a closure resulted in a court loss. In June 2023, the United 
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 
against NOAA Fisheries and its use of ``worse-case scenario'' to 
justify promulgating regulations intended to protect the North Atlantic 
Right Whale regulations at the expense of the lobster industry. The 
lobster industry sued NOAA Fisheries because it believed they had 
improperly used worst-case scenarios in the development of models that 
determine risk to right whales. In announcing its decision, the court 
said NOAA Fisheries reliance on worst-case scenario assumptions was 
arbitrary and capricious.
    While the fish in question is different--red snapper and lobster--
the overarching issue is the same. In the case of South Atlantic red 
snapper, the fundamental question is: Is NOAA's recommendation, and 
desire, to close the fishery relying on ``worst-case scenario'' 
assumptions? Florida, our fellow south Atlantic states, and the 
fishermen believe the answer is ``Yes!''
Conclusion
    FWC has opposed any area or time closures to red snapper and the 
entire snapper grouper fishery because the scientific evidence does not 
support a closure. There is no denying that we need sustainable 
fisheries, but continued access to these resources is also of paramount 
importance. People are a part of the fishery, and the fishery is part 
of the people. Every day we hear from fishermen stating that red 
snapper abundance is higher than they can remember. Building and 
maintaining public trust is absolutely essential to the success of the 
federal management process and necessary to continue to conserve our 
fisheries for the long-term. We need to ensure that all new research 
(e.g., South Atlantic Red Snapper Count, FWC expanded surveys) and data 
streams are included in the upcoming red snapper research track 
assessment so we can accurately characterize the status of the Atlantic 
red snapper fishery and provide more effective management strategies. 
Spatial or temporal closures of the entire 55 stock snapper grouper 
fishery based on an assessment of one stock are not the answer, and 
complex problems need thoughtful solutions before taking drastic 
action. As we have seen with previous management decisions, once a 
fishery is closed, it is very difficult to reopen. We need to 
understand what the Council's MSE might suggest about how to manage 
both red snapper and the entire snapper grouper fishery. FWC would like 
to test ways to change angler behavior, reduce discards, and improve 
harvest opportunities through an EFP in the red snapper hot spot areas 
off of Florida, which could provide valuable insight for the Council 
and NOAA Fisheries. As trustees of the resource, we all must do 
everything we can to help our commercial and recreational fishermen 
while conserving our fisheries resources for future generations.
    Finally, FWC is pleased to support H.R. 4051, the ``Supporting the 
Health of Aquatic systems through Research Knowledge and Enhanced 
Dialogue Act,'' or the ``SHARKED'' Act, which U.S. Rep. Wittman (R-VA) 
introduced. Florida Congressman Soto is a co-sponsor of the 
legislation, and we thank both congressmen for addressing this issue. 
We have heard about shark depredation for many years--from fishermen in 
the Keys whose prized snapper or grouper catch was eaten by a shark, 
from fishermen throughout the Gulf of Mexico during a Gulf of Mexico 
Regional Fishery Management Council discussion on the subject, and from 
countless fishermen from Pensacola to Jacksonville. We have heard 
stories from fishermen about sharks associating the sound of a motor 
stopping with an easy meal. Even before a fishing line is in the water, 
numerous sharks surround the boat ready to steal any fish that happens 
to get hooked. Shark depredation is a serious issue. Some recreational 
anglers spend a lot of money for a day on the water and are 
disappointed when half of a fish is on the other end of their line. In 
fact, according to a survey conducted by Casselberry et al.,\7\ 77 
percent of respondents had experienced depredation in nearshore and 
pelagic fisheries in the last five years, with depredation more 
commonly reported in the southeastern United States. FWC supports 
appointing a task force of serious scientists who want to educate 
people about the problem and believe the task force is a step forward 
to finding workable solutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Grace A. Casselberry, Ezra M. Markowitz, Kelly Alves, et al., 
2022. When fishing bites: Understanding angler responses to shark 
depredation, Fisheries Research, Volume 246.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, and I thank the witnesses for their 
testimony, and I will now recognize Members for 5 minutes each 
for questions.
    Mr. Wittman, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank 
our witnesses today.
    Mr. Graham, thank you. I know that it cost you money to 
come up here, because these are days that you would otherwise 
be out on the water, fishing. Let me ask a couple of different 
things. I think you really illustrate the picture perfectly for 
what it means for our recreational fisheries that rely on 
clients to charter their boats to go out and fish. And as you 
said, the middle Atlantic, as well as other places like Florida 
and others, have an incredibly robust recreational fishery as 
it relates to the charter business.
    Some folks have said, well, this is just sharks being 
sharks. Can you give me your perspective, and explain how this 
is not just sharks being sharks, and how this issue in your 
mind has changed through the years, and where things are today?
    You have spoken to me about a number of things that you 
have tried to try to overcome this shark depredation, different 
technologies, different practices, and what those are, if they 
have been successful and you being able to mitigate how these 
sharks are aggressively working to take every bit of the tuna 
that you catch?
    Mr. Graham. Yes, we have electric reels. There is a $10,000 
hydraulic winch we call a tuna brute and it is supposed to get 
the tuna faster than the shark. None of it has worked.
    When I first started out, we sat on the back of the boat 
when we hooked a bunch of tuna, and we made fun of the guy who 
was getting his butt kicked by that big, strong fish. It is no 
fun anymore. Like I said, 1 in 10 tunas maybe you will get to 
the boat.
    And, yes, each year gets progressively worse, and I think 
the sharks are definitely learning. Just like you see the 
tarpon in the marina in Key West, when the people are feeding 
them by hand.
    I mean, obviously, when boats are showing up, but we are 
seeing the sharks with the tuna. We are having predation issues 
out in 6,000 feet of water, where no boats have been in a week. 
I mean, I will run out 50, 60 miles offshore to try to find 
tuna, they are more normally on the continental shelf, but I 
will go try to find them somewhere else. And when I finally do 
find them, when I burn the extra fuel and spend the extra 
money, they still get eaten.
    So, it has really become just an unbelievable biomass of 
inescapable biomass.
    Mr. Wittman. I want to ask you, too, you heard me ask a 
question earlier of the witness from the National Marine 
Fisheries Service about shark stock assessments, and she didn't 
have any idea about what the stock assessment showed in the 
past, or when ones were going to be going forward. It is pretty 
amazing, since Magnuson-Stevens requires the Agency to do those 
things. So, maybe she ought to read Magnuson-Stevens.
    But give me your perspective. I know that you know a lot 
more about it than our witness from National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
    Mr. Graham. Well, I was at a meeting with the head of HMS 
from NOAA a couple nights ago with a couple of the actual 
commercial fishermen who do the stock assessments, or have done 
them in the past. There is no money in it for them anymore.
    So, the problem is these are commercial fishermen who just 
can't afford to go fishing every day for free, so they can't 
make any money off the sharks that they are studying. So, there 
is no one volunteering to do these studies anymore.
    And I think you asked something about the mortality rate of 
young. I just did a bit of research, and the scientists that I 
talked to said the mortality rate for sharks that give live 
birth to their young is generally accepted as much lower as 
fish eggs and whatnot, because, I mean, they literally come out 
of the shark swimming and ready to eat my tuna.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Wittman. Well, Mr. Graham, thank you.
    Ms. McCawley, I want to ask you, NOAA claims that they are 
already working on this. If they are working on this, it 
doesn't seem like they are in any way, shape, or form 
successful in this. In fact, it seems like it is getting 
exponentially worse as we hear the testimony from Mr. Graham.
    Do you think that there is enough already being done to 
figure out what is really at the root of this, and why things 
are so far out of balance now, and what NOAA is not doing in 
relationship to making sure that species are sustainable?
    And it kind of goes back to some testimony we heard earlier 
about red snapper. I mean, they are looking at mortality based 
upon releases. This is mortality on tuna populations based on, 
essentially, impact from sharks. Again, this all goes to NOAA's 
requirement to manage the species.
    Give us your thoughts about what NOAA is doing in relation 
to managing shark populations.
    Ms. McCawley. Yes, thank you for that question. We support 
the shark legislation, and we think that depredation is a 
serious problem, and we think that the task force is really a 
step forward to finding a workable solution. NOAA Fisheries has 
worked on this, but I think more needs to be done, and I think 
that this task force is a great solution.
    Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mrs. Radewagen 
for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Talofa Lava. Good 
morning, and thank you all for testifying today. My questions 
will focus on my bill that I introduced with my good friend, 
Congressman Case, on the South Pacific Tuna Treaty 
implementation language. This implementation language is vital 
for the success of the American fishing fleet in the South 
Pacific.
    I would like to submit for the record a letter from four of 
American Samoa's tuna boat owners in support of this 
legislation.

    Mr. Bentz. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]

                                          July 27, 2023            

Hon. Cliff Bentz, Chairman
Hon. Jared Huffman, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries
Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Bentz and Ranking Member Huffman:

    We are writing to express our strong support for H.R. 1792, 
legislation introduced by Representatives Radewagen and Case that would 
amend the South Pacific Tuna Treaty Act of 1988. This legislation is 
critical to the survival of the U.S. distant water tuna purse seine 
fleet, so we ask that your Subcommittee expeditiously approve the bill 
and recommend its' passage to the full Natural Resources Committee. 
Since we have found no opposition to the Treaty or the implementing 
legislation, we are hopeful H.R. 1792 can be approved by the House and 
sent to the Senate this legislative session.
    By way of background, our families have been part of the U.S. South 
Pacific tuna fleet for many generations. Our four independent purse 
seine fishing vessels are homeported in Pago Pago, where we supply fish 
to American Samoa and support many of the local business by purchasing 
fuel, supplies and other goods. We are also members of the American 
Tunaboat Association (ATA) who also strongly support the legislation. 
Our vessels fish in the US EEZ, the high seas and in the EEZ's of 
Pacific Islands party to the Treaty. Because we fish under a Treaty 
license issued pursuant to the South Pacific Tuna Treaty, we are able 
to access and fish in the EEZ's of other Pacific Island nations. Since 
our vessels were fishing under a Treaty license prior to November 3, 
1995, our vessels are also ``grandfathered'' under the South Pacific 
Tuna Act Treaty Amendments of 1995 (included in the Fisheries Act of 
1995), meaning that our vessels are eligible to fish in all of the 
Treaty areas, including the U.S. EEZ. The U.S. Coast Guard has verified 
our vessels as ``grandfathered'' and issued letter rulings to each one. 
Access to the US EEZ is becoming increasingly important with increased 
competition from foreign fleets. The US EEZ in the Pacific represents 
important historical fishing areas that our vessels have relied on for 
decades.
    After years of negotiations with the 16 Pacific Island Parties, all 
parties formally agreed to the ``renegotiated'' Treaty text and Annexes 
on December 3, 2016, in Nadi, Fiji. Soon thereafter all parties signed 
a Memorandum of Understanding committing to provisionally implementing 
the new Treaty amendments, allowing U.S. vessels to continue to operate 
without interruption. While the renegotiated Treaty was finalized at 
the end of the Obama administration, it was the first treaty that 
President Trump submitted to Congress on August 28, 2018. Finally, in 
June 2022 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommended that the 
Senate give its advice and consent to ratification and on July 19, 
2022, the Senate did just that! While the full Senate has given its 
advice and consent for ratification of the renegotiated Treaty, we are 
told the White House is waiting for Congress to approve Treaty 
implementing legislation prior to depositing the instrument of 
ratification. We've provided this background to illustrate the 
importance of action on H.R. 1792 by your Subcommittee and the full 
Committee.
    The amendments made by H.R. 1792 to Sec. 9 (16 U.S.C. 973g Licenses 
of the South Pacific Tuna Treaty Act of 1988) clarify and maintain the 
grandfather for our vessels. These changes were necessary because the 
renegotiated Treaty text eliminates the term ``Treaty area'' and 
instead uses the term ``licensing area''. We strongly support the 
changes made to Sec. 9 by H.R. 1972 as it will preserve the original 
intent of Congress in 1995.
    We want to thank you for scheduling the hearing on H.R. 1792 and 
ask for your support in moving the bill. Please contact our Washington 
representative Mr. Jeffrey Pike (202 731-9148) should you require any 
additional information.

            Sincerely,

        F/V Western Pacific           F/V Evelina Da Rosa
        Stuart Chikami                Larry Da Rosa

        F/V Pacific Princess          F/V Sea Encounter
        Ricardo da Rosa               Randall De Silva

                                 ______
                                 

    Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Gibbons-Fly, can you describe some of the challenges 
the U.S. fleet has had because the treaty implementation 
language has not yet become law?
    Mr. Gibbons-Fly. Yes, good morning, and thank you.
    In my written and oral testimony, I described the largest 
issue, which is the inclusion of the high seas, that the high 
seas remains included within the treaty area so that we can't 
fish on the high seas without a license. That is the largest 
issue.
    But beyond that, there were some additional provisions of 
the treaty that allowed the U.S. fleet to negotiate independent 
of the treaty with the Pacific Island States, so that they 
could negotiate agreements either under the umbrella of the 
treaty or completely independent under whatever terms and 
conditions might be agreed, which allows a lot more flexibility 
in terms of the nature of the requirements that would apply to 
the U.S. fleet.
    But because we can't fish in the treaty area without a 
treaty license, that second option that I just described is not 
yet open to us. So, we are limited in the access to the high 
seas. We can't fish there without a treaty license, and we 
can't negotiate those alternative agreements under which we 
might be able to negotiate better terms and conditions which 
are desperately needed by the fleet as the cost of access 
continues to increase, and increase, and increase.
    And this might not sound like a big deal to somebody 
sitting in this room listening, but to a fleet that is 
struggling to survive each and every day, every option and 
every bit of flexibility that we can find is vitally important.
    Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you. And as a follow-up, among the 
challenges facing your industry your written testimony 
references certain pending domestic regulatory actions. Can you 
tell us more about these and the potential impact on the fleet?
    Mr. Gibbons-Fly. Yes, thank you for that question. I will 
mention two in particular, two issues that are seemingly 
separate and apart but, if implemented together, would have a 
devastating impact on the American Samoa-based purse seine 
fleet.
    The first is that, under the international management 
regime that applies in the Central and Western Pacific, the 
United States is allocated a certain number of fishing days for 
the high seas in the U.S. EEZ. Historically, the United States 
has implemented that as a combined quota so that those days 
could be fished either in the U.S. EEZ on the high seas. The 
current administration is proposing to take over 500 of those 
days out of a total of roughly 1,800, so almost a third of 
those days, and require that they be fished in the U.S. 
Exclusive Economic Zone.
    The second issue is that a separate part of the 
Administration is proposing to close the entire U.S. EEZ to 
fishing under the establishment of a National Marine Sanctuary 
in what is called the Pacific Remote Island Areas. So, if you 
take 500 days and say they can only be fished in the U.S. EEZ 
and then you close the U.S. EEZ, those days have essentially 
disappeared. And the only option for the vessels to recoup 
those days is to negotiate bilateral access with the Pacific 
Island States at up to $13,000 per vessel per day.
    So, in my opinion, this combination of actions, if 
implemented, would have a seriously detrimental and even a 
potentially existential threat to the American Samoa-based 
fleet.
    Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you very much for your responses.
    I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Carl for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Carl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to real 
quickly back up just a second, a conversation that Dr. Kryc and 
Congressman Graves had about the juvenile snapper.
    I pulled up here--he gave me LSU, I don't trust LSU a whole 
lot over Alabama, but we will have to go with LSU numbers here.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Carl. Just for the record, those fish that Garret 
caught were actually from Alabama. That is the reason they are 
red. But the LSU says that a snapper will give birth between 
the age of 2 and 6. Two years old is when they start giving 
birth. At 2 years old, they lay 1,000 eggs 30 times during the 
spawning season. At 6 years old, they are laying 2.5 million 
eggs during the spawning season. For a lifetime of those 4 
years, 4 billion eggs is what they are laying. So, the numbers 
that she was talking about and the numbers we are trying to 
point out do not get anywhere close. I don't think that is an 
issue.
    Mr. Graham, thank you for being here today. I thank all the 
members on this panel for being here. And I sympathize with 
some of the situations that you all were put in. But the 
SHARKED Act is what I want to focus on, because it is huge down 
in the Gulf. It is a huge problem we have, also.
    Tackling the increase of the problems with the sharks 
depredation, which is significant, implicating for both 
recreational fishermen and the balance of marine life. You 
can't bring a snapper in without sharks chasing it. If they get 
it, they get it, and you go back after another one. Unless you 
have seen it, and I will be fishing next week in the Gulf, you 
can't believe it. They lay up under the boat, in the shadows, 
and they wait.
    But this SHARKED Act is a critical first step toward 
addressing this issue on a national scale, I should hope, and I 
appreciate the Congressman for advancing this.
    My question, Mr. Graham, can you tell me more on how the 
sharks depredation has affected your business? Because I am a 
businessman, and I am always about the nickels and dimes, and I 
want to know how it affects your business.
    Mr. Graham. It is pretty wild. I mean, there are a lot more 
boats this year tied to the dock. We are getting letters, we 
are getting calls, asking, ``Are the sharks there?'' We catch 
mahi one day, but we don't want to catch the sharks anymore. 
So, it is really starting to hit home.
    At the beginning, we were kind of, OK, well, this is maybe 
just a phenomenon that is going to happen, be gone overnight. 
You know how fishing is, sometimes something goes on for a 
little while, but then it changes. But this has, like I said, 
become exponentially worse. And now we can't look our customers 
in the eye and tell them that they are going to have any fun 
today. We can promise them they will get some bites. We can 
promise them that we will have some action. But the fish just 
don't come on the boat, and we lose all our tackle. We lose all 
our gear, everything like that.
    So, the fact that the sharks have made our sustainable 
fishery unsustainable is definitely affecting our business in a 
major way. It is affecting local businesses in a major way on 
the commercial side, restaurants, everything like that.
    And then, people coming into town to stay at the hotel, 
stay at the houses, as well as the recreational private boats 
who used to come in droves. On Memorial Day weekend, you would 
see 600 or 1,000 boats out there. And now there is no one 
there, except us charter boats who have to suffer through 
another 1,000 or 2,000 pounds of tuna lost each day.
    Mr. Carl. I agree with you. I was trying to pull it up to 
find out what type of shark it is, but we are seeing sharks 
down on the Gulf Coast we have never seen before. The world's 
largest fishing rodeo, most people probably don't realize it, 
but it is in Dolphin Island, Alabama, and I think they had 
40,000 tickets. That is 40,000 boats that fished in that 
tournament.
    Mr. Graham. Wow.
    Mr. Carl. They caught a 1,069-pound shark.
    Mr. Graham. I saw that.
    Mr. Carl. OK, you are the expert. I am not going to tell 
you what type of shark it was. Maybe you knew. But it just blew 
the records that had been going on for 70 years. This is not a 
new event. So, these sharks are getting much larger. They are 
getting closer to the shores. Of course, Orange Beach and Gulf 
Shores is beautiful, and Prestige Beach resort in my district 
also we are seeing lots of sharks, again, that we have never 
seen before.
    So, I appreciate this bill and I appreciate your efforts.
    Mr. Graham. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Carl. And what your industry does is very important in 
my district also.
    So, that said, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Carl.
    Mr. LaMalfa, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. LaMalfa. I am sorry, panelists and fellow colleagues, I 
have had two other simultaneous committees, both that had votes 
during them. Right, Mr. Carl? Anyway, I am kind of parachuting 
in.
    But I was curious, Mr. Gibbons-Fly, just in general, I 
caught part of the conversation here about how many fishing 
days you are allowed, and licensing and offshore international 
waters and all that. How well do other countries adhere to 
similar standards of what the United States has for its 
fishermen?
    Does China even have them?
    Do other countries even have them like this, or are we the 
only ones that have these, it sounds like rationing of days, et 
cetera?
    Mr. Gibbons-Fly. Well, there are a couple of different 
layers to your question, Congressman, and thank you very much 
for the question.
    The first is there is a series of rules to which all 
countries are expected to comply, but no one enforces those 
rules as strictly and with as much rigor and with the level of 
penalties as the Government of the United States applies to the 
U.S. fleet. So, we are facing an unlevel playing field there. 
And, clearly, we would simply like the other countries to 
enforce the rules in the same way that the United States does.
    There is a second element to this that different countries 
can operate under different rules. The Pacific Island States, 
for example, exempt themselves as developing states from a 
number of the requirements. But this creates a loophole for 
countries like China, like Korea, like Taiwan, who can reflag 
their vessels, can enter into charter arrangements, and then 
themselves become exempt from those requirements.
    So, the United States is complying with one set of 
requirements and the number of vessels that are exempting 
themselves by reflagging and chartering is going up, and up, 
and up. So, the playing field is becoming more and more 
unlevel.
    Yet, the Convention itself provides that participating 
territories like American Samoa are to be treated in the same 
way as the Pacific Island States, and that is not happening 
with respect to the American Samoa-based fleet.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you. It sounds like it is probably 
almost impossible to keep everybody level, even if you are 
allowing extra for particular states to even keep them within 
the two tiers and with the reflagging and all that. So, I guess 
what you have to do, just go out-fish them until the whole 
thing is over with.
    So, thank you. Let me jump to another panelist here.
    Mr. Besher, with the issue of cow and calf kills due to 
predators and such, I sympathize with what you have to deal 
with on proving it, whether you have a wolf kill or a grizzly, 
I guess. So, the topic here I have is what is happening with 
predatory black vultures, is there a reimbursement plan for 
that?
    What kind of proof is there on that?
    Comment on any of those, whether it is the vultures or go 
back to the wolf and the grizzly, if you wish.
    Mr. Besher. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. Yes, 
there is a livestock indemnity program, but you have to meet a 
threshold of 5 percent loss over your total herd before----
    Mr. LaMalfa. On the vulture or all the predators?
    Mr. Besher. On all predators, sir.
    Mr. LaMalfa. So, you have to lose 5 percent before they 
talk to you, basically?
    Mr. Besher. Yes.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Five percent?
    Mr. Besher. Yes, through the Farm Service Agency.
    Mr. LaMalfa. So, my understanding, and I am kind of loose 
on it right now, is that each time there is a calf kill, or a 
cow kill, or whatever, that you document that and Fish and 
Wildlife is supposed to come take a look. And my understanding 
is there is supposed to be reimbursement for each time it 
happens if they agree that it has been proven.
    Mr. Besher. In Missouri, how it reads right now is you have 
to have a licensed vet or a USDA APHIS official come out and do 
a necropsy, and prove that the animal was taken alive. And you 
turn those in at each take.
    Mr. LaMalfa. How much does it cost to process that, who is 
paying for that?
    Mr. Besher. Well, in Missouri right now, the Missouri 
Department of Agriculture will reimburse you $250. But with the 
shortage of veterinarians across this country, you are not 
going to get one without him being on an emergency basis, and 
we have to pay a $250 emergency fee. Then the necropsy will 
probably cost you another $250. So, you are going to be out 
$250.
    Mr. LaMalfa. What would be a nice, round number for how 
much income you would make from that head of stock, generally?
    Mr. Besher. In today's time, about $2,200.
    Mr. LaMalfa. So, $500 off the top of that, on all the 
massive margin you have, right?
    Mr. Besher. Yes, very massive.
    Mr. LaMalfa. And that differs from state to state. It 
sounds like Missouri has different rules than others.
    Mr. Besher. I believe so, sir, yes.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Yes. Because in California, where I am from, 
unfortunately, as far as the politics of it, I love my home, 
but anyway, our guys, especially up in Northern California like 
Siskiyou County, eastern Shasta County, like that, they have a 
devil of a time getting them to verify, yes, this is a wolf 
kill. I mean, what else is it? They say, ``Well, we don't 
know.''
    So, I mean, any more thoughts on that?
    Mr. Besher. Well, and verifying that loss is getting tough 
to do. You know, USDA APHIS, they are stressed for personnel to 
get one of them out, a shortage of veterinarians.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Do you believe we have a shortage of wolves in 
this country yet?
    Mr. Besher. No, I do not.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Time to pull it off the endangered species 
list?
    Mr. Besher. Absolutely.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Yes. All right, God bless you, sir. You hang 
in there. Hopefully, the cavalry is coming here. Take care.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. LaMalfa. The Chair recognizes Mr. 
Rutherford for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First, I want to thank all of the witnesses for being here 
today, and I really do appreciate you coming up and informing 
us about all these issues and your positions.
    Mr. Atkinson, if I could ask you, do you believe that the 
current data collection process does a good job capturing data 
on recreational fishing, specifically on recreational discard 
data for our reef fish?
    Mr. Atkinson. Sir, I know that is part of the stock 
assessment, and I know that stock assessment based on that has 
been deemed the best available science by those who make such 
decisions.
    Mr. Rutherford. So, is that a yes or no?
    Mr. Atkinson. It is the best available, sir. So, I suppose 
that is a yes.
    Mr. Rutherford. OK.
    Mr. Atkinson. It will get better, as well.
    Mr. Rutherford. Mr. Chairman, if I could, I would like to 
ask unanimous consent to place in the record the September 13, 
2022 South Atlantic Red Snapper Council report from NOAA.
    Dr. Wittman [presiding]. Without objection.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you.

    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

    Mr. Rutherford. And, Mr. Chairman, that is the report that 
I referenced earlier, where on page 5 NOAA says, in big letters 
here, ``And there is scientific uncertainty, data uncertainty. 
Commercial discards, recreational discards,'' and this entire 
conversation revolves around these discards, so that is why I 
am a little concerned when we start to rely on those discard 
numbers in driving our policy.
    So, Director McCawley, if I could ask you, talk about your 
concerns about the current data collection. Also about these 
high discard numbers, how they are driving this whole 
conversation. And do you think we are capturing good data?
    Ms. McCawley. Thank you for that question, Congressman, and 
I also want to thank you for all of your efforts to conserve 
Florida's resources.
    I would say that the state of Florida is definitely trying 
to get better data on recreational discards. The state of 
Florida has the state reef fish survey, which is trying to get 
targeted information because NOAA's MRIP data doesn't really 
capture those offshore reef fish very well in their surveys. 
So, we are definitely trying to get better information.
    And we also think that, with NOAA's exempted fishing 
permits that they say they are going to give to the states in 
the coming months, that we can get even better data about the 
discard information. And as you mentioned earlier, that Great 
Red Snapper Count, that is going to get better information 
about recreational discards in that fishery, as well.
    Mr. Rutherford. Right. And I would point out also to the 
Committee that this bill, the Red Snapper Act, does nothing to 
impede what the Council is already moving forward with in their 
management of this fish stock, it does nothing. It simply says, 
until you get this new data, you can't take these extreme 
measures. Can you talk about the impact that these closures 
would have not just on this species, but the taking of the 
other species, as well?
    Ms. McCawley. Yes, thank you for that question.
    I talked about in my testimony that, yes, there are 55 
species in that snapper-grouper complex, and the discussion is 
primarily for northeast Florida to close down fishing for all 
55 species in order to try to get at this discard issue for 
one, for red snapper.
    We indicated in our testimony that we are talking about 
hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of impact, and over 
3,500 jobs alone, just on the recreational side.
    Mr. Rutherford. Thank you very much.
    And Mr. Chairman, I would like to go on record I will be 
co-sponsoring all of the bills that I have heard discussed here 
today. I am very supportive of what all these witnesses are 
trying to achieve.
    And I would like to request that the Committee support the 
Red Snapper Act. We don't need to be doing economic damage to 
particularly northeast Florida when we have bad data. We can 
wait for the good data.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Wittman. I thank the gentleman from Florida, and now 
recognize Mrs. Luna for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Luna. I am just going to piggyback off of what my 
colleague just said.
    We obviously have a massive red snapper fan base in my home 
state of Florida, especially in Pinellas County. But in a 
multi-year-long study, it has been now found, and I am sure you 
have heard these stats already repeated, but we now have over 
118 million red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico, which is 
drastically different from the 36 million that was previously 
reported, and I even went as far as signing a letter with a 
majority of my Florida colleagues to appropriately increase the 
red snapper quota for the Gulf of Mexico anglers to stimulate 
our economy.
    With the South Atlantic Great Red Snapper Count now 
underway, NOAA indeed should be using more updated information 
in their decision-making process. But instead, to my 
understanding, they are not doing so. So, my questions for you 
guys, and specifically Ms. McCawley, is does it make sense for 
the fishery management decisions to be made on incomplete and 
outdated data?
    Ms. McCawley. Thank you, Congresswoman, for your question. 
And also thank you for all of your efforts to conserve 
Florida's resources, and I would say, no, it doesn't make sense 
for them to make decisions when we have this new data on the 
way.
    And also, we don't necessarily agree with that discard 
information that they are using right now, which is why Florida 
has gone so far as to establish a new survey, the State Reef 
Fish Survey, to try to get additional information.
    And we are also supportive of that Great Red Snapper Count 
that was wonderful in the Gulf. And we are excited about the 
results over on the Atlantic in hopes that it will be used in 
the stock assessment before any draconian measures are taken.
    Mrs. Luna. You probably just gave, I think, most of 
Florida's fishermen a massive morale boost. So, I am going to 
clip that and post it on my social. So, you guys heard it here. 
She said it. She agrees with us.
    OK. Prior to proposing their draconian closures in the 
South Atlantic last year, did NOAA consult with state agencies 
like Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission or 
anglers that are on the waters every day about the impacts that 
their decision would have on local businesses and the fishing 
economy?
    Ms. McCawley. Yes, thank you for that question. NOAA sits 
on the South Atlantic Council with us, so they do hear from 
fishermen as they come to the Council to give public comment. 
And we also interact with our Federal colleagues.
    However, I don't know that they fully understand the 
magnitude of what those closures would do, the economic impact, 
the number of jobs that would be affected if a closure were to 
be implemented.
    Mrs. Luna. To your understanding, are any of those people 
that sit on that Council with you, are they fishermen, or 
business owners, anglers? Like, legitimate anglers?
    Ms. McCawley. Yes, thank you for that question. There are 
both recreational fishermen and commercial fishermen, as well 
as state agency reps like myself on that Council.
    Mrs. Luna. That are represented by NOAA?
    Ms. McCawley. Oh, NOAA just has one seat. Thank you for 
that clarification. NOAA just has one seat and one vote on that 
Council.
    Mrs. Luna. And do you know if that individual is an angler, 
professional fisherman, or small business owner?
    Ms. McCawley. No, he just works for the Federal agency. I 
think maybe he fishes in his spare time. But no, he is not a 
professional fisherman.
    Mrs. Luna. So, he is a B word, a bureaucrat, yes?
    Ms. McCawley. Yes.
    Mrs. Luna. OK. Well, Chairman, I yield the rest of my time.
    Thank you very much for coming today.
    Mr. Bentz [presiding]. Thank you, Mrs. Luna. The Chair 
recognizes Mr. Rose for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Rose. Thank you, Chairman Bentz, and thank you for the 
opportunity to waive on to the Committee today, for holding 
this important hearing.
    Mr. Besher, I just wanted to start out by saying thank you 
for traveling here from Missouri to offer your testimony on 
behalf of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, NCBA. I 
believe that your perspective as a cow-calf producer is vitally 
important to the discussion surrounding how best to tackle 
black vulture depredation.
    Mr. Besher, in your written testimony, you highlighted that 
even in a year where markets in your industry are favorable to 
producers, that your margins are slim. Would you discuss just 
how devastating financially black vulture depredation can be to 
producers who operate on such slim margins?
    Mr. Besher. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. Yes, 
we do have slim margins, sir. And right now, our average, we 
will lose three to four calves a year. In today's markets, 
those animals are worth anywhere from $2,000 to $2,500 finished 
out. So, that is a big financial loss. And you take what the 
average cow size, 100 or less, that is a big hit to a farmer.
    And not only are you losing the financial there, but the 
genetics that you have just lost in that animal. Most producers 
are growing their herds, increasing their genetics, so all that 
is down the drain also.
    Mr. Rose. Thank you. And Mr. Besher, my bill, the 
bipartisan Black Vulture Relief Act of 2023, has a once-a-year 
reporting requirement. Do you feel that a once-a-year reporting 
requirement is sufficient for monitoring population management 
while also balancing against overly burdensome reporting 
requirements for producers?
    Mr. Besher. I do. I mean, and right now we have a Federal 
permit and we report our takes at the end of every year. And 
that gives you a checks and balances of what is being out 
there, how many are being hatched out.
    We actually have a nest that was actually hatched out in 
one of our barns. We had to get USDA APHIS down there to 
relocate those.
    But yes, I think a 1-year checks and balance would be 
appropriate.
    Mr. Rose. And I think you have just made reference to my 
next question, but ``take'' under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 
doesn't necessarily mean killing the bird. It can mean 
disturbance of an animal or its habitat. Can you talk about the 
non-lethal tools that you currently use as part of your 
operation and their relative success?
    Mr. Besher. We have used a lot of non-lethal tools, 
anywhere from pyrotechnics, which we cannot use right now 
because we are in a very serious drought, afraid of starting a 
wildfire. We have used propane cannons that are effective for 
maybe a day or two.
    The only effective tool is to use an effigy, is to take an 
animal, hang it in a tree, fence row. That is the only 
effective tool that we have found that works. But the issue 
with that is that you are taking the buzzard population that is 
on your place and you are pushing it off on your neighbor. So, 
the problem is not going away, you are just moving it to 
another area.
    Mr. Rose. In your written testimony, you also referred to 
the connection between grazing and rotational patterns and 
forage use and these black vultures. If you could, address what 
it means for your operation, day to day.
    Mr. Besher. We practice rotational grazing on our operation 
just for soil health and increasing forage mass. By pulling the 
cattle down tighter, we will pull 200 cows down into a 50-acre 
paddock, condense them. When we get an attack from some 
vultures, there are usually 40 or 50 in the group. Pulling the 
animals down tighter, that gives more defense to the little 
calves.
    We should not have to look over our animals that closely. 
It is very sad every day when you go out and check your cattle 
or feed your cattle, that you have to carry a firearm with you.
    Mr. Rose. And we discussed this earlier, but I am also a 
cow-calf producer. And speaking to that same issue of how you 
manage your pasture, your grazing rotation, we had such a 
significant presence of black vultures on one of my farms where 
we literally had to abandon use of that particular 300-acre 
tract because there were 300-plus black vultures there. Any cow 
that attempted to calve or we had calving during calving season 
was attacked. And literally, to solve that problem we would 
either have had to kill 300 black vultures, or a significant 
number, or move them.
    So, I appreciate, again, you being here today. I want to 
just stress how important this issue is to cow-calf producers 
and livestock producers all across the country.
    Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Rose. The Chair recognizes Mrs. 
Boebert for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Wolff, I want to thank you again for making the trip to 
come out and testify on H.R. 4596. This is a very important 
bill.
    I know that you have touched on it in your testimony, and I 
appreciate that, but would you mind expanding upon the 
successes of this program that it will have once it is 
reauthorized by this bill?
    Mr. Wolff. Thank you for the question, Representative 
Boebert.
    I think the successes have been outlined in the two 
original goals: recovery of the fish species and administration 
of allowing water development to go forward unhindered. Those 
things have gone forward for 30-plus years. The alternative to 
that is the burden of individual section 7 compliance, the 
conflicts that brings, and the potential litigation of which we 
have seen none of that with these programs.
    So, reauthorization of the programs will allow a 
cooperative, collaborative process to move forward and do good 
without bringing some of the other things we have seen across 
the country.
    Mrs. Boebert. Yes. So, we have seen the recovery. We have 
seen the downlisting of the humpback chub, and then we have 
also seen that the razorback is recommended for downlisting.
    Capital funding also supports major infrastructure projects 
at reservoirs, diversion dams, canals, and floodplains across 
the basins.
    Can you expand upon how including diverse stakeholders in 
the conversation to draft this 7-year authorization improved 
this legislation?
    Mr. Wolff. Thank you for the question.
    I think the success of the programs have been because 
everybody is at the table making the decisions. We all work 
together. Whether you are a water user, you work for a 
conservation group, you are a state, you are a Federal entity, 
a tribe, hydropower, we are all at the table making the 
decisions together and collaboratively. So, we have all been 
able to move the program forward, and we hope to be able to 
continue that.
    Mrs. Boebert. Mr. Wolff, of the 2,500 water users that 
benefit from this legislation, 1,200 of them are located in 
Colorado. Would you mind discussing the consequences for local 
communities if these important programs aren't reauthorized?
    Mr. Wolff. Thank you for the question.
    I think, without the reauthorization, these programs will 
go away and we will get back to what I mentioned, individual 
section 7 compliance that brings burdens, conflict, and 
probably litigation. And I would argue, probably cease to see 
the advances in recovery of the species we have seen under the 
programs. It is a model that we don't want to see. We want to 
continue forward with the cooperativeness that we have seen.
    Mrs. Boebert. Yes. And I would also add that leaving this 
work unfinished will risk losing control of critical water 
sources that underpin and help grow local economies. These 
projects provide water for local municipalities, tribes, major 
reservoirs, agriculture, ski areas, power generation 
facilities, and others that use more than 3.69 million acre-
feet of water per year.
    Mr. Wolff, you touched on it in your testimony, but can you 
elaborate on the non-Federal contributions being made by states 
and local stakeholders to support these programs?
    Mr. Wolff. Oh, absolutely. Thank you for the question.
    Non-Federal contributions come in three forms. First, all 
the states and some other partners provide some cash into the 
program themselves. There are significant non-cash 
contributions. Many of the states work on a lot of the 
monitoring and research efforts relative to the species and 
some of the propagation. There is also a significant amount of 
water contributions to the programs by many entities within the 
system. That is a voluntary contribution provided to help meet 
flow targets in certain critical reaches of the habitat. So, 
those are the three main non-Federal contributions.
    Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Wolff. Can you also elaborate 
on the importance of non-Federal water users contributing 
nearly 3 million acre-feet of water to benefit endangered fish?
    Mr. Wolff. Absolutely, thank you for the question. And I 
think I just started to address that.
    There are certain critical reaches that are very, very 
important to the recovery of these fish species. Several 
entities across the basin contribute water on an annual basis 
to help to meet flow targets, meet the habitat needs of the 
fish. And that has been critical in the recovery of the fish 
species that we have seen.
    Mrs. Boebert. And just while we have 20 seconds, is there 
anything else on this program that you would like to add?
    Mr. Wolff. I think I have said it. These are cooperative, 
collaborative programs that benefit water users across the 
basin, and we are recovering fish species.
    Thank you for introducing the bill. We hope to move it 
forward.
    Mrs. Boebert. Yes, thank you. I hope to see its quick 
passage, and I thank you again for making the trip, and thank 
you to the rest of the witnesses who are here today.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mrs. Boebert. The Chair recognizes 
himself for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Shawcroft, in the bill there is a phrase the you want 
to use the ``unexpended budget authority.'' How much is left?
    Mr. Shawcroft. There is approximately $100 million left 
that could be transferred and used for these conservation 
efforts.
    Mr. Bentz. The term ``conservation'' as defined in that 
bill is of interest to me because it has a wide variety of 
uses. As is reflected in this bill, what does it mean?
    Mr. Shawcroft. In this case, conservation means taking 
water that was used for one purpose and being able to use it 
for another purpose.
    So, for example, one of the items that we are pursuing is 
grass turf removal. So, the water that would have otherwise 
been used on that grass would now be able to be used for other 
purposes, which may be growth----
    Mr. Bentz. Forgive me for interrupting, but it is not the 
paper, right, that you are working from. It is the actual 
amount that was consumed by the grass that is the measure of 
conservation, is it not?
    Mr. Shawcroft. Correct.
    Mr. Bentz. Yes.
    Mr. Shawcroft. It is an actual measurement, acre-foot, of 
water that is used for a different purpose.
    Mr. Bentz. Correct. Thank you for that.
    Mr. Besher, I am from a cattle ranching background, so I 
have seen all that you have described. I note in looking during 
some of the other testimony that the number of these black 
vultures back in 2018 was around 4.26 million, and that it was 
suggested that in some spaces you could ``take as many as 
287,000 a year.''
    So, I am just curious, has someone done a study to suggest, 
if this bill passed and you were allowed to take these 
creatures without having to go through the work of acquiring a 
permit, how long before you wipe out the population? You have 
4.2 million to take. That was 5 years ago.
    Mr. Besher. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. I am 
unfamiliar with the breeding pattern of these, but the steady 
increase that we have seen over the past years, I mean, 
producers are not wanting to wipe them off the face of the 
Earth. We are just wanting to get this population in check 
where they are not depredating our calves.
    Mr. Bentz. Yes, I just checked and the estimate is the 
population increases by between 1 and 4 percent a year. So, my 
point is, the odds of cattle ranchers wiping out the population 
is zero. And, in fact, even keeping up with the increase in 
population at this particular point is unlikely.
    Mr. Besher. Absolutely.
    Mr. Bentz. Is that a correct take on the situation?
    Mr. Besher. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Bentz. So, why in the world you are having to go 
through this work is unclear to me.
    I want to shift to Mr. Graham. The concept of too many 
black vultures on the one hand, and now too many sharks on the 
other is pretty apparent. But is that the outcome that you are 
seeking when it comes to this independent group?
    Sure, we already know you are suffering depredation issues. 
What is it that you want to see happen?
    Mr. Graham. Well, I mean, and too many red snappers, too. 
We have to talk.
    But I think there are a lot of answers. I mean, like I 
said, we have been trying to use devices. I think we need to 
research why. I think we need to know why this is happening. Is 
it because we protected all these fish species? Is it because 
we protected the vultures? Is it because we protected all these 
different species of sharks, and has that conservation worked? 
And if so, we should be very proud of that.
    But we have now created a sustainable resource, made 
another resource unsustainable, a more popular resource of tuna 
and steak, I might add. So, now we need to know how do we sort 
this out to where we can balance this thing.
    Mr. Bentz. What is the life of a shark? How long does a 
shark live?
    Mr. Graham. Oh gosh, it would have to be in the 40 to 50 
years range.
    Mr. Bentz. So, if you are going to rely upon figuring out 
how to make the population decline naturally, you have a long 
wait. Is your suggestion that, should the study indicate there 
are too many sharks, then there is going to be some way to 
reduce the population? Is that the ultimate outcome you are 
seeking?
    Mr. Graham. I think there are ways to definitely reduce the 
population in a sustainable way, absolutely. So, if that be the 
case, there are markets, there are fish. A tuna is a fish, so 
absolutely.
    I think you have to look at the previous markets from 
previous years before this was an issue, and go from there and 
see how we can sort it out.
    Mr. Bentz. All right. I want to thank the panel for all of 
your patience with our questions and for sitting in such close 
quarters. I really wish we had had more space for you. And I 
want to thank you for your testimony and thank the Members for 
the questions.
    The members of the Committee may have some additional 
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to 
these in writing.
    Under Committee Rule 3, members of the Committee must 
submit questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5 p.m. Eastern 
Time on Tuesday, August 1. The hearing record will be held open 
for 10 business days for these responses.
    If there is no further business, hearing none, without 
objection the Subcommittee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

                        Statement for the Record
                    U.S. Department of the Interior
             on H.R. 4094, Great Salt Lake Stewardship Act

    Thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement on H.R. 
4094, the Great Salt Lake Stewardship Act. If enacted, this legislation 
would amend Title II of the Central Utah Project Completion Act (CUPCA) 
P.L. 102-575 and include a new Section 213. Enacted in 1992, Title II 
of CUPCA authorized budget authority for development of Central Utah 
Project features and created a successful water conservation program 
entitled the Water Management Improvement Program, in Section 207. This 
new Section 213 would provide additional flexibility for the Department 
to utilize any unexpended budget authority that may be available from 
other sections of Title II to augment the Water Management Improvement 
Program.

    In addition, H.R. 4094 would expand the geographic area covered by 
CUPCA's Water Management Improvement Program to consider water 
conservation measures in the Great Salt Lake drainage basin. Water 
conservation measures implemented under this amendment would be 
considered compliant with the Bonneville Unit's Definite Plan Report.

    Drought and climate change are having a significant effect on water 
resources in the Western United States including impacts to the Great 
Salt Lake. Should Congress enact this legislation, the Department will 
consider additional water conservation measures, including in the Great 
Salt Lake drainage basin, while continuing to prioritize construction 
of the Central Utah Project.

                                 ______
                                 
                        Statement for the Record
                       U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
  H.R. 4596, Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basins Endangered Fish 
             Recovery Programs Reauthorization Act of 2023

    Thank you for the opportunity to provide Interior's views on H.R. 
4596, Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basins Endangered Fish Recovery 
Programs Reauthorization Act of 2023.
H.R. 4596, Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basins Endangered Fish 
        Recovery Programs Reauthorization Act of 2023

    This bill would extend authority for the Upper Colorado River and 
San Juan River Basin endangered fish recovery implementation programs 
(recovery programs). Reclamation supports and urges reauthorization of 
these important and successful recovery programs. Reauthorization of 
the recovery programs provides certainty for the programs and ensures 
current and future water development in the Upper Colorado River Basin.
    For more than 30 years, the recovery programs have been a model of 
Endangered Species Act (ESA) implementation. The recovery programs' 
goals are to protect and recover federally listed fishes (Colorado 
pikeminnow, razorback sucker, humpback chub, and bonytail) found only 
in the Colorado River basin while water development proceeds according 
to federal and state laws, interstate compacts, Supreme Court decrees, 
and federal trust responsibility to Tribes. The recovery programs' 
actions provide ESA compliance for more than 2,500 federal, Tribal, and 
non-federal water projects which deliver more than 3.69 million acre-
feet of water for agricultural, industrial, Tribal, and municipal uses. 
The recovery programs facilitate delivery from Flaming Gorge, Navajo, 
and Aspinall Unit reservoirs of the Colorado River Storage Project 
(CRSP) which collectively have more than 6.6 million acre-feet of 
storage capacity, as well as depletions of a few acre-feet or less by 
small, individual, projects in the four Upper Basin states of Colorado, 
New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.
    When the recovery programs were initiated in 1988 and 1992, the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicated that the trajectory of all 
four listed species was toward extinction. The implementation of these 
recovery programs has not only prevented extinctions, but substantially 
improved the prospect for recovering the listed fish while 
simultaneously providing timely implementation of water delivery and 
hydropower projects. The recovery programs have contributed to the 
downlisting of the humpback chub from endangered to threatened in 2021. 
The razorback sucker is being recommended for downlisting based on 
reestablishment of adult populations across the Colorado River basin 
and increasing signs of natural recruitment.
    Participants in the recovery programs include the Upper Basin 
states; federal agencies, including the Bureau of Reclamation, Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Western Area Power Administration, National Park 
Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Bureau of Indian Affairs; 
American Indian Tribes including the Navajo Nation, Jicarilla Apache 
Nation, Southern Ute Tribe, and Ute Mountain Ute Tribe; water users; 
power users; and environmental organizations.
    Similar to other recovery and conservation programs outside of the 
Upper Colorado River Basin which have cost-share between Federal and 
non-Federal sources, these two recovery programs have historically been 
supported from a variety of funding sources, including cash and in-kind 
contributions by states, water users, and power customers, as well as 
hydropower revenues and federal appropriations. Shared contributions 
from program participants are essential for the continued success of 
the recovery programs.
    Recovery program activities are implemented through a combination 
of annual base funding and capital project expenditures. Annual base 
funding supports recurring expenses for staff time, facility operations 
and maintenance, field activities, monitoring and data collection, data 
analysis and management, public outreach, committee meetings, and 
general administrative support. Capital funding supports major 
infrastructure improvements implemented at reservoirs, canals, 
diversion dams, and floodplains across the basin.
    Reclamation supports this bill and urges extended re-authorization 
of P.L. 106-392 as the continued recovery of endangered and threatened 
species is essential to Reclamation's mission. The continued success of 
the recovery programs to ensure the recovery of threatened and 
endangered fish will provide certainty and allow for continued 
operation and future water development in the Upper Colorado River 
Basin.

                                 ______
                                 

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Grijalva

                                 OCEANA

                                                 August 4, 2023    

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

Re: SHARKED Act--July 27, 2023 Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and 
        Fisheries Legislative Hearing

    Dear Chair Bentz and Ranking Member Huffman:

    On behalf of Oceana and its 1.2 million members and supporters in 
the United States we write to provide feedback and concerns about H.R. 
4051, Supporting the Health of Aquatic systems through Research, 
Knowledge, and Enhanced Dialogue Act (SHARKED Act) which focuses on 
potentially problematic solutions to ``depredation,'' the phenomenon of 
sharks eating fish previously hooked by commercial and recreational 
fishermen. Shark conservation and modern management has been a priority 
of Oceana's for many years. As written, Oceana cannot support this 
bill. Instead of the SHARKED Act, we recommend that this subcommittee 
focus on the variety of much-needed improvements to the way that 
America's shark populations are managed and providing adequate 
resources to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 
to better understand and manage America's shark populations.
    Modern, science-based fishery management under the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act (MSA) works, if administered responsibly and effectively. Dozens of 
fish species around the country have benefited from the requirements of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act. However, sharks have largely been ignored by 
the fishery management process and the outcomes on the water show this. 
More than half of all U.S. shark stocks lack the fundamental 
information to support proper management according to the most recent 
Status of the Stocks report from the National Marine Fisheries Service, 
the relevant agency within the National Oceanic & Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) (``Fisheries Service or ``NOAA Fisheries''). Many 
more are mismanaged through crude tools like stock complexes that group 
shark species arbitrarily and not based on common biological 
attributes.
    The SHARKED Act has two major proposals. First it will create a 
duplicative ``Task Force'' to explore the issue of shark depredation; 
develop ways to improve coordination and communication and education to 
``address'' shark depredation; and identify research priorities and 
funding opportunities. Most alarmingly, the bill charges the Task Force 
to ``develop recommended management strategies to address shark 
depredation'' without any reference to current fishery law.
    Second the SHARKED Act will amend the Magnuson-Stevens Act to 
expand the list of existing Cooperative Research and Management 
Programs to include ``projects to better understand shark depredation, 
including identifying what causes increases in shark depredation and 
determining how to best address shark depredation.'' Improving U.S. 
shark management is needed but the SHARKED Act, as proposed, will do 
little, if anything to solve these problems facing sharks. In fact, it 
may make things worse. Instead of supporting a niche bill designed to 
respond to a perceived problem, Congress should be working on improving 
U.S. shark management and on-the-water outcomes for these imperiled 
species, including better management of ``depredation.''
    As introduced, the SHARKED Act is unnecessary and duplicative of 
existing programs, requirements and authorities in federal fisheries 
management. The SHARKED Act will take limited funds and resources away 
from existing, under-resourced fishery science and management programs 
around the country. And the SHARKED Act could also allow unproven 
management strategies to take hold instead of science-based management 
that has been the heart of MSA management for decades. In the words of 
one witness and charter captain in last week's House Natural Resources 
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries hearing, this bill may 
open the door to ``reducing the population of sharks in a sustainable 
way.'' \1\ This witness was likely referring to one of the provisions 
of the SHARKED Act, which requires the Task Force to identify research 
and funding opportunities for using ``non-lethal deterrents'' and other 
management strategies that may be harmful to shark populations without 
reference to the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Oral Testimony of Mr. Jack Graham, Captain Afishianado Charters 
on H.R. 4051 available at https://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/
eventsingle.aspx?EventID=414642 (Last accessed July 31, 2023 at 
3:07:50).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Instead of pursuing the SHARKED Act, Congress should first seek to 
improve shark management in the U.S. and ensure robust funding for 
shark science and management. Other legislative efforts should 
prioritize the threats to global shark populations, the role of the 
U.S. in shark management and how effective modern management can help 
restore and protect these key parts of the ocean ecosystem. The 
Magnuson-Stevens Act provides powerful tools for the U.S. to use 
science-based fisheries management including requirements to set 
meaningful catch limits (including for bycatch) and establish 
safeguards along these lines. If fully implemented and funded, modern 
shark management can restore our shark populations and help respond to 
a variety issues, even including depredation. However, because of 
mismanagement and excessive exceptions and exemptions, many shark 
stocks are in trouble.
    Congress should seek to ensure U.S. shark science and management 
are fully supported--rather than detracting from important fishery 
science and management priorities. In order to improve our shark 
populations and the management responses available for issues like 
depredation, we must ensure that there are updated, high-quality stock 
assessments and robust mechanisms to administer fishery management 
regulations. With respect to depredation specifically, NOAA Fisheries 
has clearly stated that more can be done to address depredation if 
provided with resources to do this.\2\ Congress should follow through 
and allow the Fisheries Service to build on the work it started in the 
2022 depredation report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ NOAA Report to Congress, 2022. Interactions between bottlenose 
dolphins and sharks in commercial, for-hire, and private recreational 
fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic. NOAA Report to 
Congress, 2022. (https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2022-08/NMFS-
Assessment-Fishing-Interference-RTC-08_29_22.pdf)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We have fought too hard for too many decades to restore shark 
populations and end harmful shark fishing practices, and the work is 
far from done. Sharks are integral to healthy ecosystems because they 
keep prey species populations in check. Sharks also bring scuba divers, 
snorkelers, and others out to our waters, hoping for a chance to 
witness them. In Florida alone, sharks add around $350 million in 
economic impact per year.
    On behalf of our supporters, we are concerned by the SHARKED Act's 
wasteful directives and potential to harm other fishery science and 
management priorities. For these reasons, we urge Chairman Bentz and 
Ranking Member Huffman to reject this bill in favor of a comprehensive 
shark management and funding strategy. This broader approach will 
improve the science, management, and outcomes for these species rather 
than focusing on niche, unproven approaches that will improve 
management and management outcomes for all sharks, including 
depredation issues with other fisheries.
    Oceana does not support the SHARKED Act and we appreciate the 
opportunity to comment and urge you to consider our perspective in this 
conversation.

            Sincerely,

                                                Gib Brogan,
                                  Campaign Director, U.S. Fisheries

                                 ______
                                 

                               ATTACHMENT

          The SHARKED Act is Duplicative of Existing Programs

    In many ways, both major priorities of the SHARKED Act are 
duplicative of existing programs and authorities in U.S. shark 
management. The Fisheries Service has career staff exploring the issues 
raised in the SHARKED Act and has already produced useful results from 
their work. It is important to note that as recently as 2022 the 
Fisheries Service produced a report at the direction of Congress 
entitled ``Interactions between bottlenose dolphins and sharks in 
commercial, for-hire, and private recreational fisheries in the Gulf of 
Mexico and South Atlantic \3\'' that explored the interactions between 
both bottlenose dolphins and sharks and fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico 
and South Atlantic that ``quantified the degree to which dolphins and 
sharks interfere with commercial, charter, and recreational fishing and 
recommends non-lethal methods to deter dolphins and sharks.\4\''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ NOAA Report to Congress, 2022. Interactions between bottlenose 
dolphins and sharks in commercial, for-hire, and private recreational 
fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic. NOAA Report to 
Congress, 2022. (https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2022-08/NMFS-
Assessment-Fishing-Interference-RTC-08_29_22.pdf)
    \4\ NOAA Website, Debunking Common Shark Myths, https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/debunking-common-shark-myths
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This report concluded: ``the nature, extent, frequency, and 
geographic locations of dolphin- and shark-fishery interactions are not 
fully understood.'' Further, ``(m)ore data would be needed to improve 
our ability to quantify dolphin and shark interactions with fisheries. 
These data could be collected if additional resources were available to 
augment and analyze existing datasets.''
    The report then went on to advise on the status of various 
management tools, including those specified in the SHARKED Act and to 
reiterate that ``an enhanced, thoughtful, and collaborative approach is 
needed to manage the complex nature of fishery interactions with 
dolphins and sharks, in coordination with numerous stakeholders, 
including state natural resource agencies, commercial and recreational 
fishers, researchers and academics, and others.'' The Fisheries Service 
ends with a commitment to pursuing this issue to ``the fullest extent 
our resources allow.\5\''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ NOAA Report to Congress, 2022. Interactions between bottlenose 
dolphins and sharks in commercial, for-hire, and private recreational 
fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic. NOAA Report to 
Congress, 2022. (https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2022-08/NMFS-
Assessment-Fishing-Interference-RTC-08_29_22.pdf) Executive summary 
page 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, the Fisheries Service notes ``we hope to identify best 
practices that will help fishermen to avoid unwanted interactions with 
sharks.''

     The SHARKED Act will take funding from other fishery research 
                               priorities

    A robust cooperative fishery research program supports fishery 
science and management around the country by partnering scientists with 
members of the commercial, recreational and for-hire fisheries. These 
programs are guided by existing policy and guidelines including clear 
language in the Magnuson-Stevens Act that spells out that cooperative 
research ``should address needs identified under this Act and under any 
other marine resource laws enforced by the Secretary,'' and that 
funding should be ``part of a coherent program of research focused on 
solving priority issues identified by the Councils'' giving priority to 
the following projects:

     Projects to collect data to improve, supplement, or 
            enhance stock assessments, including the use of fishing 
            vessels or acoustic or other marine technology.

     Projects to assess the amount and type of bycatch or post-
            release mortality occurring in a fishery.

     Conservation engineering projects designed to reduce 
            bycatch, including avoidance of post-release mortality, 
            reduction of bycatch in high seas fisheries, and transfer 
            of such fishing technologies to other nations.

     Projects for the identification of habitat areas of 
            particular concern and for habitat conservation.

     Projects designed to collect and compile economic and 
            social data.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Magnuson-Stevens Act Section 318(c).

    The existing cooperative research program supports many worthy 
fishery research projects in fisheries from New England to the Western 
Pacific. Adding a narrowly specific priority for depredation studies 
will likely alter funding streams across the country with unknown 
effects. It is important to note that research on shark depredation is 
currently provided for and the agency notes ``NOAA Fisheries has funded 
several cooperative research studies in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 
aimed at characterizing and reducing the extent of shark depredation in 
the region . . . collecting genetic data to identify which shark 
species are mostly commonly responsible for depredation events and 
surveying fishermen about their depredation experiences.''
    Because of the recent finding of the Fisheries Service report and 
the current research being conducted under MSA, both of the primary 
sections of the SHARKED Act are already in progress. U.S. shark 
management does not need this legislation to recreate the wheel that is 
already rolling at the Fisheries Service. Instead, Congress should 
focus on improving shark management in U.S. fisheries and fully funding 
shark science and management through the appropriations process with 
new funding for depredation research, management and outreach.

 The SHARKED Act will not improve failing shark management in the U.S.

    U.S. management of shark populations is failing. As a group, sharks 
grow slowly, mature late, and then produce relatively few young. As a 
result, they are sensitive to overexploitation, as we have seen over 
the years, with global oceanic shark and ray abundance decreasing by 
more than 70 percent since 1970. To make things worse in the U.S., 
managers don't know the status of more than 54% of the 66 shark stocks 
under federal management and only 23% of U.S. shark stocks are healthy 
(not overfished or experiencing overfishing). The below graphic is from 
the 2021 Status of Stocks, but the data has not changed in the new 
assessment.

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    .eps(Source https://usa.oceana.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/
Oceana-SharkFacts-9-2-Final.pdf)

    Instead of the shortsighted SHARKED Act, Congress should prioritize 
improving management of shark stocks and fully funding the Fisheries 
Service's shark assessment and research efforts instead of the wide 
latitude and duplicative effort offered in SHARKED Act.

                                 ______
                                 

                        NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY

                           Salt Lake City, UT

                                                  July 26, 2023    

        Hon. Mike Lee                 Hon. Mitt Romney
        U.S. Senate                   U.S. Senate
        Russell Senate Office Bldg    Russell Senate Office Bldg
        Washington, DC 20510          Washington, DC 20510

        Hon. John Curtis              Hon. Chris Stewart
        U.S. House of 
        Representatives               U.S. House of Representatives
        Rayburn House Office Bldg     Cannon House Office Bldg
        Washington, DC 20515          Washington, DC 20515

        Hon. Burgess Owens            Hon. Blake Moore
        U.S. House of 
        Representatives               U.S. House of Representatives
        Cannon House Office Bldg      Longworth House Office Bldg
        Washington, DC 20515          Washington, DC 20515

Re: Audubon Support for the Great Salt Lake Stewardship Act (H.R. 4094, 
        S. 1955)

    Dear Utah Congressional Delegation:

    On behalf of National Audubon Society (Audubon), I write to express 
support for the Great Salt Lake Stewardship Act. Audubon and its Saline 
Lakes Program, as part of our Western Water Initiative, works to 
advance balanced solutions for water use to ensure that birds, 
ecosystems, people, and economies that rely on water resources can 
thrive.
    For more than 25 years, Audubon has been working to protect Great 
Salt Lake, including managing the Gillmor Sanctuary on the Shore of 
Great Salt Lake to provide wetland habitat for shorebirds and other 
waterbirds.
    Great Salt Lake and other saline lake ecosystems are faced with 
serious challenges resulting from decreased inflows and diversions, 
drought, and the impacts of a changing climate. The devastating 
implications of drying lakes on people, businesses and the environment 
throughout the world is well known.
    Increasing water conservation efforts and reducing water 
consumption is particularly essential to preserve Great Salt Lake and 
its surrounding wetlands habitats. Thus, many of our efforts in Utah 
support frameworks and tools to help communities and businesses 
conserve and balance demand for the state's limited water supplies.
    The Great Salt Lake Stewardship Act provides an important means to 
aid the State of Utah and its residents in their continuing efforts to 
stretch limited water supplies through the Central Utah Project 
Completion Act's purpose of promoting water conservation projects in 
the Great Salt Lake basin, which could in turn benefit the lake and 
surrounding communities.

    We greatly appreciate the support of the entire Utah Congressional 
Delegation in introducing and advancing the Great Salt Lake Stewardship 
Act.

            Sincerely,

                                            Marcelle Shoop,
                                     Director, Saline Lakes Program

                                 ______
                                 
                                                 August 2, 2023    

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

Re: National and Regional Organizations Support the Bipartisan New 
        York-New Jersey Watershed Protection Act (H.R. 2982/S. 1335)

    Dear Chairman Bentz and Ranking Member Huffman:

    As representatives of organizations nationwide as well as in New 
York and New Jersey, we support H.R. 2982/S. 1335, the New York-New 
Jersey Watershed Protection Act (NYNJWPA). This year provides a 
historic opportunity to authorize the NYNJWPA and ensure that 
communities across the New York-New Jersey region have the opportunity 
to collaborate with the federal government to advance local watershed 
management that many other regions have benefited from for decades.

    Along with supplying clean water to some 15 million Americans 
living in one of the country's most densely populated and economically 
diverse regions, the harbor and its watersheds--including the Hudson, 
Mohawk, Raritan, Passaic, Hackensack, and Bronx rivers--host some of 
the busiest U.S. ports, provide opportunities for tourism and outdoor 
recreation that attract people from around the world and improve public 
health, sustain significant fisheries and critical wildlife habitat, 
and protect businesses and vital infrastructure from flooding and other 
storm-related damages. Additionally, the NYNJWPA will provide critical 
support for rural communities across the region by providing funding to 
support local public access and wildlife management plans. The 
conservation of this watershed is especially critical as the home to 
millions of Americans and significant economic activity; in addition to 
ensuring a healthy and resilient ecosystem, and promoting jobs for the 
family-owned businesses equipped to do habitat restoration work, it is 
critical to secure and improve public access for outdoor recreationists 
including sportsmen and women.

    The NYNJWPA offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to secure a 
coordinated, watershed-wide program built upon decades of efforts to 
restore some of the nation's most impaired and degraded waters. Federal 
partnerships in the watersheds of Chesapeake Bay, Delaware River, Long 
Island Sound, Lake Champlain, the Great Lakes, and others have 
successfully demonstrated how such a program can deliver direct 
benefits to the environment, local communities, and state economies. 
Notably, the grant program authorized by this legislation will match 
local funds and leverage additional resources to assist communities 
lacking in environmental justice, as well as the small, rural 
communities that are critical to the economic and environmental well-
being of the watershed.

    These waterways play a critical role in enhancing Americans' 
quality of life, health, and prosperity, and in restoring communities 
disproportionately challenged by climate change. Local partnerships are 
strong and regional priorities have been established through dozens of 
science-based, consensus-driven plans to manage these natural resources 
and protect fish and wildlife habitats, improve water quality, increase 
public access to the water, mitigate flood risks, and develop public 
outreach and educational activities. In addition to helping to 
implement these locally approved plans, federal leadership, 
coordination, and resources will amplify their impacts by promoting 
collaboration that will ensure on-the-ground public benefits span the 
entire region.
    The New York-New Jersey Watershed Protection Act is essential to 
the recovery of the region's water, economic well-being, wildlife, and 
communities. We strongly support the passage of this legislation and 
urge Senators and Representatives to move this legislation forward 
during the 118th Congress.

            Sincerely,

        Scenic Hudson                 NJ Chapter of Backcountry Hunters 
                                      & Anglers

        Riverkeeper                   NY Chapter of Backcountry Hunters 
                                      & Anglers

        Boone and Crockett Club       NY-NJ Baykeeper

        Engineers Labor-Employer 
        Cooperative Local 825         Nature Conservancy of New York

        Hudson River Sloop 
        Clearwater                    Nature Conservancy of New Jersey

        Mississippi River Trust

                                 ______
                                 
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress 
                       from the State of New York
     on H.R. 2982, the New York-New Jersey Watershed Protection Act

    Thank you, Chairman Bentz and Ranking Member Huffman, for the 
opportunity to address the Subcommittee and for including my bill, H.R. 
2982, the New York-New Jersey Watershed Protection Act, in today's 
hearing.
    I am proud to represent New York's Capital Region, a community and 
economy that is inextricably linked to the historic Hudson and Mohawk 
Rivers that flow nearby. These waters, along with the Raritan River and 
their tributaries, make up the nation's most populous watershed. Our 
water resources serve as sources of drinking water for millions of 
people, provide habitats for more than 200 fish species, and support 
critical outdoor recreation and tourism industries.
    Like water resources all across the country, our waterways have, 
for decades, faced severe challenges that threaten public health and 
safety. The Hudson River is the nation's largest Superfund site. 
Hazardous waste and legacy chemicals remain unacceptably high, 
threatening the health and safety of ecosystems, wildlife, and human 
health throughout the entire Watershed. The metropolitan area includes 
more than 500 miles of coastline, yet only a scant few of those miles 
are available for outdoor recreation, and even fewer in communities 
experiencing environmental injustice.
    Record rainfall over this past month has caused catastrophic 
flooding across New York, endangering families and communities and 
causing significant infrastructure damage, closed roadways, and delayed 
travel. Extreme weather events and the impacts of sea-level rise like 
increasing storm surges and flood risks are only being exacerbated by 
the climate crisis.
    We must take pause and re-evaluate our connection and 
responsibility to the waters of our region.
    Local watershed stewardship--by coordinated groups of community 
leaders, scientists, outdoor recreationists, and others--is so 
important to restoring the health and resilience of our water 
resources, and the communities and economies that rely on them. Across 
the nation, there is a network of effective regional watershed 
programs--for example, in Delaware, the Great Lakes, and the Chesapeake 
Bay--that create a targeted role for the federal government in 
coordinating and boosting local conservation efforts.
    The New York-New Jersey Watershed Protection Act would fill a gap 
in our nation's regional watershed programs by extending this existing 
model to the Hudson, Mohawk, and Raritan Rivers and their tributaries.
    I am proud to have reintroduced this legislation in the 118th 
Congress with 20 bipartisan co-sponsors and more than 50 local and 
national stakeholder groups. The bill would establish the New York-New 
Jersey Watershed Restoration Program and Grant Program to coordinate 
restoration efforts across the region, build local capacity, and 
implement local restoration plans that communities have already found 
consensus on. The program would ensure that restoration efforts utilize 
science-based principles to protect fish and wildlife habitats, improve 
water quality, increase public access, mitigate flood risks.
    I greatly appreciated the engagement from my colleagues across the 
aisle in the 117th Congress that resulted in new additions and changes 
to the bill before it advanced out of Committee and was passed by the 
House, and I am prepared and eager to work with you to continue that 
process in the 118th Congress.
    The New York-New Jersey Watershed is an economic engine not just 
for our local communities, but for the nation, and federal investment 
is long overdue to ensure that these water resources can continue to 
boost economic opportunity, tourism, and outdoor recreation, while 
protecting public health and access to clean water.

                               [all]