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



                  EXAMINING THE PRESIDENT'S FY 2025
                     BUDGET PROPOSAL FOR THE U.S.
                 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, U.S. FISH AND
                  WILDLIFE SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC
                    AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION,
                        AND THE POWER MARKETING
                            ADMINISTRATIONS

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

                           OVERSIGHT HEARING

                               before the

                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, WILDLIFE AND
                                FISHERIES

                                 of the

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION
                               __________

                         Thursday, May 16, 2024
                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-122
                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
              
              
              
              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



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

                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 

55-690 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, CNMI       
Tom McClintock, CA                   Jared Huffman, CA     
Paul Gosar, AZ                       Ruben Gallego, AZ   
Garret Graves, LA                    Joe Neguse, CO     
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS         Mike Levin, CA               
Doug LaMalfa, CA                     Katie Porter, CA
Daniel Webster, FL                   Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM          
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR         Melanie A. Stansbury, NM                
Russ Fulcher, ID                     Mary Sattler Peltola, AK         
Pete Stauber, MN                     Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
John R. Curtis, UT                   Kevin Mullin, CA            
Tom Tiffany, WI                      Val T. Hoyle, OR     
Jerry Carl, AL                       Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA   
Matt Rosendale, MT                   Seth Magaziner, RI   
Lauren Boebert, CO                   Nydia M. Velazquez, NY                   
Cliff Bentz, OR                      Ed Case, HI                    
Jen Kiggans, VA                      Debbie Dingell, MI                    
Jim Moylan, GU                       Susie Lee, NV                         
Wesley P. Hunt, TX                                         
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, May 16, 2024...........................     1

Statement of Members:

    Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California........................................     2
    Bentz, Hon. Cliff, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Oregon............................................     3

Statement of Witnesses:

    Touton, Hon. Camille, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, 
      Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.................     5
        Prepared statement of....................................     7
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    11
    Williams, Hon. Martha, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
      Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC........    12
        Prepared statement of....................................    13
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    21
    Spinrad, Hon. Richard, Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans 
      and Atmosphere & National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
      Administration Administrator, Department of Commerce, 
      Washington, DC.............................................    26
        Prepared statement of....................................    27
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    30
    Hairston, John, Administrator and CEO, Bonneville Power 
      Administration, Department of Energy, Portland, Oregon.....    35
        Prepared statement of....................................    37
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    42
    LeBeau, Tracey, Administrator and CEO, Western Area Power 
      Administration, Department of Energy, Lakewood, Colorado...    43
        Prepared statement of....................................    45
    Wech, Mike, Administrator, Southwestern Power Administration, 
      Department of Energy, Tulsa, Oklahoma......................    51
        Prepared statement of....................................    53
        Questions submitted for the record.......................    56
    Hobbs, Virgil, Administrator and CEO, Southeastern Power 
      Administration, Department of Energy, Elberton, Georgia....    56
        Prepared statement of....................................    58

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Bentz

        Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, Letter to the Office 
          of National Marine Sanctuaries.........................   102
        State of Oregon, Letter to Committee on Delisting of Grey 
          Wolves.................................................   104

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Hageman

        Protect the Public's Trust, Letter to U.S. Dept of 
          Commerce and NOAA......................................    80
        The Heartland Institute, ``Corrupted Climate Stations, 
          The Official U.S. Temperature Record Remains Fatally 
          Flawed''...............................................    90

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Westerman

        Wildlife conservation groups, Letter to U.S. Fish and 
          Wildlife Service.......................................   106

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Newhouse

        E-mail exchange with Canadian government.................   108

    Submissions for the Record by Representative Carter

        U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ``Frequently Asked 
          Questions--Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge and Twin 
          Pines Mine''...........................................    97
                                     
 
                   OVERSIGHT HEARING ON EXAMINING THE 
                   PRESIDENT'S FY 2025 BUDGET PROPOSAL
                   FOR THE U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION,
                U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, NATIONAL
                  OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRA-
                     TION, AND THE POWER MARKETING
                            ADMINISTRATIONS

                              ----------                              

                         Thursday, May 16, 2024
                     U.S. House of Representatives
             Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries
                     Committee on Natural Resources
                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m., in 
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Cliff Bentz 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Bentz, Graves, LaMalfa, Webster, 
Carl, Hageman, Westerman; Huffman, Napolitano, Peltola, Mullin, 
Hoyle, and Dingell.
    Also present: Representatives Stauber, Moylan, Newhouse, 
Carter, Murphy, D'Esposito; and Schrier.

    Mr. Graves [presiding]. The Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife 
and Fisheries will come to order.
    I am going to do something a little bit out of order, in 
that Chairman Bentz had to go over to a different Committee to 
go vote, so I am going to forego the opening statement. He will 
come back and deliver an opening statement whenever he is 
available to do so. So, we are going to go ahead and roll right 
in, provided that my friend from California is OK with that.
    Mr. Huffman. Yes.
    Mr. Graves. All right, good deal. Good afternoon. I want to 
welcome our witnesses, Members, and our guests in the audience 
of today's hearing.
    The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on a 
hearing entitled, ``Examining the President's FY 2025 Budget 
Proposals for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric 
Administration, and the Power Marketing Administrations.''
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
    I also ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from 
Minnesota, Mr. Stauber; the gentleman from Guam, Mr. Moylan; 
the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Newhouse; the gentleman from 
Georgia, Mr. Carter; the gentleman from North Carolina, Dr. 
Murphy; and the gentleman from New York, Mr. D'Esposito be 
allowed to participate in today's hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    And as I mentioned, I am going to defer Mr. Bentz's opening 
statement.
    Do you want to give one now?
    Mr. Huffman. I would.
    Mr. Graves. I would yield to the gentleman from California 
for his opening statement.
    Mr. Huffman. I thank the gentleman.

     STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTA-
       TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Huffman. Good afternoon, everyone. It is good to see 
you all. It is an impressive lineup of agencies that does 
really important work. Certainly, managing our natural 
resources to protect wildlife and habitat, clean water, clean 
air, healthy environments, electricity, safeguarding our 
nation's resources against the impacts of climate change, all 
of that important work is complicated by the fact that just in 
the past year our nation has faced record droughts and heat 
waves, $28 multi-billion disasters, to be exact.
    And, of course, we also have declining biodiversity, 
fishery closures, and a lot more. And as you deal with all of 
that, you are also tasked with helping do something that could 
change this terrible fossil fuel paradigm that is driving the 
climate crisis, rolling out a transition in terms of managing 
and permitting authority of clean energy infrastructure in 
unprecedented amounts. And you are delivering on the America 
the Beautiful initiative at the same time. So, that is really a 
hugely important set of programs and policies.
    And to be blunt, if a budget reflects one's priorities, 
this 2025 budget is a bit confusing in some respects. Some 
programs within this Committee's jurisdiction that provide for 
sustainable fisheries and essential coastal resilience face 
significant cuts, while others remain relatively whole. And I 
know that the budget constraints of the Fiscal Responsibility 
Act force you to make tough decisions. But in several cases, 
the cuts are actually below the FRA levels.
    So, the rationale for some of these decisions is not always 
clear, and I think that clarity is important because my friends 
across the aisle who demand draconian cuts for fish and 
wildlife and coasts and Great Lakes and water programs have a 
pattern of turning around and then criticizing the same 
agencies that received those cuts when they are not permitting 
things fast enough, or when they are not doing enough to remove 
species from the endangered species list, and on and on.
    And this MO of kneecapping Federal agencies and then 
turning around and arguing that government is ineffective 
really puts us on an unfortunate treadmill, and it is no way to 
make natural resource policy or to get things done. It also 
kind of hands policy over, if it works in the way it is 
intended, to polluting industries and their lawyers and 
lobbyists, and I think we are going to hear some talking points 
today that come straight from many of those special interests.
    I hope some of us, as we wade through all of this, we will 
remember the bigger picture. The issues and the programs that 
we are talking about here today shouldn't be about Democrats or 
Republicans trying to score political points. It is really 
about the future of our nation and our planet. And if history 
teaches anything, it is that this idea of strategically 
underfunding natural resource agencies will ultimately cost 
taxpayers more money in the long run.
    And the flip side of that is, if we adequately fund 
environmental programs, we save money. Every dollar we invest 
now in coastal adaptation and resilience saves $6 in future 
disaster costs. For every dollar we put into restoration 
programs, we see an average of $10 in local benefits. Real, 
tangible economic benefit.
    So, one of these days I hope that my colleagues across the 
aisle will accept that the science community is right, that 
these extreme weather events that we are all living through are 
not a hoax or a conspiracy or a biblical omen. They are just 
real. And ideology is a poor substitute for facing reality, 
especially with water: 2023 was the hottest year on record, and 
2024 is on track to beat it.
    The harsh reality will continue to adversely impact our 
water supply, so we should be looking to smart, cost-effective, 
resilient strategies instead of pointing to a single wet year 
and arguing for huge amounts of money going to new surface 
storage projects that won't deliver water when we need it most. 
We should prioritize Federal water investments that protect, 
preserve, and optimize our over-exploited water supplies 
instead of big, controversial projects that carry huge price 
tags, have major impacts, and don't yield nearly as much water 
as investing in conservation, recycling, and climate resilient 
strategies.
    Reclamation's proposed budget advances much of this mission 
through the WaterSMART program, aging infrastructure, and rural 
water projects, and I support that.
    I also support the proposed budget for mandatory funding of 
Indian water rights settlements. These are important 
strategies.
    I look forward to discussing the rest of these budget 
questions as we go forward.
    I yield back.

    Mr. Graves. Thank you, sir. I want to thank the gentleman 
from California for reminding us that the lawyers and lobbyists 
from Big Oil endorse the Inflation Reduction Act that all the 
Members on this side of the aisle opposed.
    And with that, I am going to defer to the Chairman.
    Mr. Bentz. Well, I want to thank the witnesses for being 
here today.
    Thank you, Mr. Graves, for sitting in for me while I went 
to vote in Judiciary.
    This is an unusual opportunity for me to rebut the Ranking 
Member.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Huffman. That is true.
    Mr. Bentz. Yes, because usually it is the other way around.

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

    Mr. Bentz. I just want to say a couple of words about how 
important it is that we get back into our forests so that we 
could actually do something for the watersheds in California, 
for example. But we are being prevented from doing that by any 
number of environmental organizations that, for some reason, 
would rather see those forests burn up than help store water 
for the folks in California.
    And likewise, when it comes to budgets, and that is what we 
are here today to talk about, the billions and billions and 
billions of dollars that you folks here today are in charge of 
and, in many ways, we rely upon you to do the very best you 
can, and I am sure you are trying to do so, but that doesn't 
absolve us, we here in Congress, of our oversight 
responsibility to make sure that, indeed, those billions are 
being spent the way they should be, at least in our opinion.
    The challenge, of course, much disagreement on how money 
gets spent. But on the other hand, there is little disagreement 
on the fact that you do have billions and billions and billions 
of dollars to spend, and much of that coming from budgets that 
were passed before we Republicans took over. So, we will be 
anxious to hear today how that money is being deployed, 
taxpayers' money. And I am looking forward to that.
    Appearing before us today we have the Bureau of 
Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, and the four regional Federal Power 
Marketing Administrations.
    Collectively, your agencies have requested in the billions. 
It said $10 billion, it is more than that over the 2025 year. 
It is absolutely essential that we exercise this oversight 
authority, and it is our duty, overseeing what the executive 
branch is doing. One way to do this is to have the agencies 
come before Congress and explain, just as we are doing today in 
the limited time allowed, their budgets and their missions.
    Each of these agencies has a huge impact on the daily lives 
of Americans. The Bureau of Reclamation manages multi-purpose 
storage reservoirs in the Western states, including the 
Deschutes and Klamath projects located in my district. Many of 
these projects generate hydropower, and, of course, the power 
marketing agencies that deliver that power to wholesale 
customers, such as the rural electric cooperatives, municipal 
utilities, and tribes. These projects are managed to comply 
with rules set by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA, 
who oversee the implementation of the Endangered Species Act.
    These agencies often don't mesh, their opinions don't mesh, 
resulting in severe damage to those who are dependent upon the 
water controlled by these groups, and I am sure there will be 
questions about that today.
    The Fish and Wildlife Service manages the National Wildlife 
Refuge System. Most recently, they proposed a rule that would 
fundamentally change how our refuges are managed, and I don't 
think for the betterment of the system, but we will hear about 
that. Also concerning is this proposal to reduce funding for 
the North American Wetlands Conservation Act by a third. 
Questions may well be asked about the source of the rule 
previously referenced.
    NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service is tasked with 
implementing the Magnuson-Stevens Act, a primary law governing 
our fishery resources, yet the NMFS budget appears to 
prioritize offshore wind development over fisheries management 
and important data collection. We do want to make sure that the 
focus is on our fishery resources, and also at the same time 
making sure that extreme rules that dramatically affect 
negatively use of our oceans are not overly restrictive in 
their approach, as compared to their effect.
    There is a lot to cover today, and I am looking forward to 
hearing from our witnesses.
    We have already recognized the Ranking Member, so we are 
going to move on.
    Mr. Huffman. You can give me another----
    Mr. Bentz. No, no, we are not going to do that.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Bentz. I will now introduce our witnesses.
    The Honorable Camille Touton, Commissioner of the Bureau of 
Reclamation in Washington, DC; the Honorable Martha Williams, 
Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Washington, 
DC; the Honorable Richard Spinrad, Under Secretary for Oceans 
and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator with the Department of 
Commerce in Washington, DC; Administrator John Hairston, CEO of 
the Bonneville Power Administration in Portland, Oregon; 
Administrator Tracey LeBeau, Administrator and CEO of the 
Western Power Administration in Lakewood, Colorado; 
Administrator Michael Wech, Administrator of the Southwestern 
Power Administration in Tulsa, Oklahoma; and Administrator 
Virgil Hobbs, the CEO of Southeastern Power Administration in 
Elberton, Georgia.
    Let me remind the witnesses that 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 ``on'' button on 
the microphone, and I will remind you the microphones in this 
room are sketchy.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Bentz. They are worse than that, so you will need to 
speak directly into the microphone. And if you are not, I will 
remind you.
    We use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn 
green. When you have 1 minute left, the light will turn yellow. 
And at the end of 5 minutes, the light will turn red, and I 
will ask you to please stop.
    I will also allow all witnesses to testify before Member 
questioning.
    I now recognize Commissioner Touton for 5 minutes.
    Commissioner.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. CAMILLE TOUTON, COMMISSIONER,
        BUREAU   OF  RECLAMATION,   DEPARTMENT   OF   THE 
        INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC

    Ms. Touton. Good afternoon. My name is Camille Calimlim 
Touton, and I serve as the Commissioner of the Bureau of 
Reclamation. Thank you, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, 
and members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to discuss 
the President's budget for the Bureau of Reclamation. It is a 
privilege to be here with you today.
    The Bureau of Reclamation is the largest deliverer and 
manager of water in the nation, and the second largest producer 
of hydropower. We have 189 projects across the American West, 
and help to feed the nation and the world with 10 million acres 
of irrigated agriculture, provide water to millions of 
Americans, and meet our trust responsibility to sovereign 
nations while sustaining ecosystems across the Western 
landscape.
    The need to secure, maintain, and modernize our nation's 
water infrastructure is an Administration priority, and we have 
a once-in-a-generation opportunity to utilize our Fiscal Year 
2025 budget request of $1.6 billion with that of the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act.
    The cyclical nature of Western hydrology, as we have seen 
over the last 3 years, highlights the need for immediate 
actions as well as thoughtful, on-the-ground work to make our 
infrastructure and operational decisions more resilient to 
withstand future water scarcity and variability.
    Our 2025 budget priorities reflect a commitment to drought 
planning and response activities to promote water security in 
the short and long term. This approach is illustrated by our 
signing of a Record of Decision last week to protect the near-
term stability of the Colorado River system. With historic 
conservation of 3 million acre-feet, in collaboration with our 
partners, made possible by President Biden's Investing in 
America agenda, we have staved off the immediate threat and 
stabilized the system to protect water deliveries, the 
ecosystem, and power production. Our focus is now on the 
future.
    Across the West, we are guided by the best available 
science and engineering. The stability of our infrastructure 
and our commitment to transparency remains our highest 
priority. Reclamation's dams and reservoirs, water conveyance 
systems, and hydropower facilities serve as the water power 
infrastructure backbone of the American West.
    However, as with all infrastructure, these features are 
aging, and in need of critical maintenance to prepare for the 
future. Our 2025 budget includes $74.8 million for 
extraordinary maintenance, combined with our BIL investments 
just announced today, $520.8 million in Fiscal Year 2024 
funding for aging infrastructure. This includes over $2 million 
for the installation of a surge tank at the Mill Creek plant 
that is part of the Dalles project in Oregon, and approximately 
$30 million to modernize and repair the Livingstone National 
Fish Hatchery in Northern California.
    Reclamation's WaterSMART Program also provided nearly $10 
million in BIL funding to the North Unit Irrigation District 
for fish screen replacement at the Bend Headworks in Oregon on 
the Deschutes River.
    We are also continuing construction of our largest dam 
safety modification at B.F. Sisk in California, supported by 
our Fiscal Year 2025 Dam Safety Program request of $211.2 
million. At Sisk, we are also undertaking a dam raise that will 
provide increased water storage in California. Since 2021, 
Reclamation has invested $695 million in water storage projects 
in California alone.
    We must also address our infrastructure needs while 
considering our economic inequities and the needs of rural and 
underserved communities. Reclamation is establishing and 
rebuilding water infrastructure for underserved populations by 
ensuring that clean drinking water is provided to communities. 
Our request includes $58.5 million for Rural Water Program, and 
leverages the $1 billion in BIL funding to accelerate the 
completion of these projects, of which we have already selected 
$806 million.
    The Department remains committed to upholding our trust 
responsibilities with Tribal Nations, and over the past 3 
years, Interior has allocated $2.43 billion available through 
BIL to address Indian water rights settlements. In addition to 
these investments, our request includes $181 million in our 
Fiscal Year 2025 budget to support the White Mountain Apache 
Tribe's Water Settlement Agreement.
    The Administration also proposes legislation to expand the 
Indian Water Rights Settlements Completion Fund, a proposal 
that will provide $2.8 billion in mandatory funding over 10 
years to ensure commitments are honored, as well as funding for 
operation and maintenance costs.
    We are committed to working with you, and working with 
Congress and this Subcommittee, as well as our partners across 
the West in carrying out our mission, and our Fiscal Year 2025 
budget supports these actions.
    Again, I thank the Subcommittee. I am happy to answer any 
questions.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Touton follows:]
    
      Prepared Statement of Camille Calimlim Touton, Commissioner,
                       U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

    Thank you, Chair Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman and members of the 
Subcommittee for the opportunity to discuss with you the President's 
Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 Budget for the Bureau of Reclamation. I am 
Camille Calimlim Touton, Commissioner for the Bureau of Reclamation.
    Reclamation manages water for agriculture, municipal and industrial 
use, the environment, power production, and provides flood control and 
recreation for millions of people. We are also the second largest 
producer of hydropower in the United States and operate 53 
hydroelectric powerplants that annually produced, on average, 40 
billion kilowatt-hours for the last 10 years. Reclamation's project and 
programs serve as the water and power infrastructure backbone of the 
American West, constituting an important driver of economic growth in 
hundreds of basins throughout the Western States. Reclamation's 
activities support economic activity valued at $34.1 billion, and 
support approximately 450,700 jobs.\1\ Reclamation delivers 10 trillion 
gallons of water to millions of people each year and provides water for 
irrigation of 10 million farmland acres, which yields approximately 25 
percent of the Nation's fruit and nut crops, and 60 percent of the 
vegetable harvest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ U.S. Department of the Interior Economic Contributions Report--
Fiscal Year 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reclamation's fundamental work to modernize and maintain 
infrastructure, conserve natural resources, use science and research to 
inform decision-making, serve rural, Tribal, and underserved 
populations, and stay as nimble as possible in response to the 
requirements of drought and aridification--position us to meet the 
Biden-Harris Administration's core tenets. The Bureau of Reclamation's 
2025 budget provides the foundation to meet our mission and remains 
committed to working with a wide range of partners, including water and 
power customers, Tribes, State and local officials, and non-
governmental organizations.
    Reclamation is requesting a net total of $1,543,321,000 in Federal 
discretionary appropriations, which is anticipated to be augmented by 
almost $2.5 billion in other Federal and non-Federal funds for FY 2025. 
Of the total, $1,443,527,000 is for the Water and Related Resources 
account, which is Reclamation's largest account, $66,794,000 is for the 
Policy and Administration account, and $33,000,000 is for the 
California Bay Delta account. A total of $55,656,000 is budgeted for 
the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund.
    Reclamation is committed to efficient and effective implementation 
of the Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act, also known as the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), which was enacted as Public Law 
117-58 on November 15, 2021. Title IX of the BIL, Western Water 
Infrastructure, authorized $8.3 billion to be appropriated to Water and 
Related Resources in $1.66 billion annual installments from FY 2022-FY 
2026, making a once-in-a-generation investment in the Nation's 
infrastructure and economic competitiveness. This landmark investment 
will rebuild America's critical infrastructure, tackle the climate 
crisis, advance environmental justice, and drive the creation of good-
paying union jobs. By addressing long overdue improvements and 
strengthening our resilience to the changing climate, this investment 
in our communities across the country will grow the economy sustainably 
and equitably for decades to come.
    Reclamation has been putting these resources to work in communities 
with focus on areas where the greatest impact can be realized. Since 
President Biden signed the BIL, Reclamation has selected 420 distinct 
projects for funding, totaling more than $2.9 billion. The Spend Plan 
that sets out FY 2025 allocations of this funding was submitted to 
Congress at the same time as this FY 2025 request as required and is 
available at https://www.usbr.gov/bil/2022-spendplan.html. The Spend 
Plan allocates funding at the program level, and subsequent addenda to 
the Plan allocate programmatic funds to the project level for certain 
programs.
    Reclamation is also committed to efficient and effective 
implementation of The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), Public Law 117-
169, which was enacted on Aug. 16, 2022. Title V, Subtitle B, Part 3 of 
the law, entitled ``Drought Response and Preparedness,'' makes 
available $4.587 billion to mitigate drought in Reclamation States; to 
plan, design and construct domestic water supply projects for 
disadvantaged communities or households that do not have reliable 
access to domestic water supplies; to design and implement projects to 
cover water conveyance facilities with solar panels; and to provide 
emergency drought relief for Tribes. The programs and projects funded 
under the IRA will help increase water conservation, improve water 
efficiency across western basins experiencing long-term drought, and 
prevent the Colorado River System's reservoirs from falling to 
critically low elevations. Reclamation is actively engaged implementing 
the law and has already directed funds to Colorado River water delivery 
contract or entitlement holders for activities that mitigate drought in 
the short term. A total of 23 Lower Basin agreements have been executed 
in Arizona and California, serving to conserve up to 1,567,668 acre-
feet of water through 2026. An additional 104,427 acre-feet of system 
conservation in the Upper Basin have been executed using IRA funding. 
Information on plans, developments and funding will be available at 
https://www.usbr.gov/inflation-reduction-act.

    Modernizing and Maintaining Infrastructure: Reclamation's water and 
power projects throughout the western United States provide water 
supplies for agricultural, municipal, and industrial purposes. 
Reclamation's projects also provide energy produced by hydropower 
facilities and maintain ecosystems that support fish and wildlife, 
hunting, fishing, and other recreation, as well as rural economies.

    Activities to Support Underserved Communities, Tribal Programs & 
Tribal Water Rights Settlements: Reclamation tackles the challenges of 
underserved communities through investments in Tribal water rights 
settlements, continuation of the Native American Affairs technical 
assistance program, rural water projects, and investments in specific 
projects for underserved communities through programs such as 
WaterSMART. The BIL and IRA appropriations invest substantial portions 
of its funding to underserved populations, rural, and Tribal 
communities. Reclamation is committed to investing public dollars 
equitably, including through the Justice40 Initiative, a government-
wide effort toward a goal that 40 percent of the overall benefits from 
Federal investments in climate and clean energy flow to disadvantaged 
communities.
    Section 70101 of the BIL established the Indian Water Rights 
Settlement Completion Fund (Completion Fund), making $2.5 billion 
available to the Secretary of the Interior to satisfy Tribal settlement 
obligations as authorized by Congress prior to enactment of the BIL. In 
FY 2022 through FY 2024, the Secretary of Interior allocated $2.434 
billion of those funds, $815.4 million of which supported Reclamation's 
Tribal settlement implementation actions. The Department expects to 
allocate the remaining $65.9 million in funding from the Completion 
Fund in FY 2025; more detail can be found in the Permanents chapter of 
the FY 2025 Reclamation budget request. In addition to the Completion 
Fund, FY 2025 represents the sixth year of Reclamation Water 
Settlements Fund (RWSF) allocations, which provides $120 million in 
annual mandatory authority for Reclamation Indian water rights 
settlements. The RWSF is authorized as an interest-bearing account; and 
making use of the accrued interest, Reclamation anticipates $142 
million being available in FY 2025. Funding made available by previous 
mandatory authorities, such as that authorized in the Claims Resolution 
Act, remain available for settlement implementation, while the ongoing 
operations and maintenance requirements of the Arizona Water Settlement 
Act are expected to continue to be supported within the Lower Colorado 
River Basin Development Fund.
    The 2025 President's Budget request continues previous proposals to 
provide mandatory funding for Indian Water Rights Settlements. The 2024 
President's Budget proposed legislation to provide mandatory funding 
for Indian Water Rights Settlements to cover the costs of existing and 
future water rights settlements and to address the ongoing Operation, 
Maintenance, and Repair requirements associated with four enacted 
Indian Water Rights Settlements managed by Reclamation. The proposal 
would provide $2.8 billion: $250.0 million annually over 10 years for 
existing and future water rights settlements and $34.0 million a year 
over 10 years for requirements associated with the Ak Chin Indian Water 
Rights Settlement Project, the Animas-La Plata Project (Colorado Ute 
Settlement), the Columbia and Snake River Salmon Recovery Project (Nez 
Perce Settlement), and the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project. Funds 
would be deposited into the Indian Water Rights Settlement Completion 
Fund established by the BIL and be available to Reclamation for 
implementation.
    In addition to supporting the mandatory funding proposals, the FY 
2025 discretionary request includes $181 million for the White Mountain 
Apache Tribe (WMAT) Water Rights Quantification Act of 2010. P.L. 117-
342, enacted January 5, 2023, which amended the White Mountain 
legislation, increasing the authorization of the WMAT Cost Overrun 
Subaccount from $11 million to $541 million and extending 
enforceability from April 2023 to December 2027. Funding will support 
the design, construction, and eventual operations and maintenance of a 
rural water system to provide clean, potable water.
    The FY 2025 discretionary request also includes $29.5 million for 
the Native American Affairs program to improve capacity to work with 
and support Tribes in the resolution of their water rights claims and 
to develop sustainable water sharing agreements and management 
activities; $9 million of this amount will support Tribal drought 
assistance efforts in FY 2025, while $500,000 will support Departmental 
and Reclamation efforts for Tribal Co-Stewardship activities. This 
funding will also strengthen Department-wide capabilities to achieve an 
integrated and systematic approach to Indian water rights negotiations 
to consider the full range of economic, legal, and technical attributes 
of proposed settlements. Reclamation is committed to increasing 
opportunities for Tribes to develop, manage, and protect their water 
and related resources. The Native American Affairs Program is a 
collaborative, coordinated, integrated function in Reclamation, which 
performs activities that support the opportunities.
    Reclamation's Rural Water program, under which many activities 
support Tribal needs, addresses important needs in rural communities 
for clean, reliable, safe drinking water; the FY 2025 request includes 
$58.5 million to support investments made through BIL to ensure 
construction, operations, and maintenance of the existing authorized 
projects can proceed as efficiently as possible. Funding also supports 
Reclamation efforts for Tribal Nations by supporting many activities 
across the Bureau, including the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement 
Project, the Klamath Project, and the Lahontan Basin project, among 
others.
    Finally, the WaterSMART Program prioritizes funding under its 
competitive grant programs for disadvantaged and underserved 
communities. The WaterSMART Program aims to address water supply issues 
and improve water management through partnerships with communities, 
States, Tribes, municipalities, and agricultural stakeholders.

    Conservation and Climate Resilience: The climate crisis is 
challenging Reclamation's ability to both produce energy and sustain 
reliable water delivery. The Nation faces undeniable realities that 
water supplies for agriculture, fisheries, ecosystems, industry, 
cities, and energy are confronting stability challenges due to climate 
change. Reclamation's projects address the Administration's 
conservation and climate resilience priorities through funding requests 
for the WaterSMART program, funding to secure water supply to wildlife 
refuges, and proactive efforts through providing sound climate science, 
research and development, and clean energy. To address these 
challenges, Reclamation has implemented its Climate Change Adaptation 
Strategy, which affirms Reclamation will use leading science and 
engineering to adapt climate-based situations across the West.
    The WaterSMART Program serves as a contributor to Reclamation's/
Interior's Water Conservation Priority Goal. Since 2010, projects 
funded under contributing programs, including WaterSMART Grants, Title 
XVI (Water Recycling and Reuse Program), California Bay-Delta Program, 
Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project, and Desalination 
construction projects have achieved a total of 1,745,157 acre-feet 
water savings.
    Through WaterSMART, Reclamation works cooperatively with States, 
Tribes, and local entities as they plan for and implement actions to 
address current and future water shortages due to a number of factors 
including drought, degraded water quality, increased demands for water 
and energy from growing populations, environmental water requirements, 
and the potential for decreased water supply availability due to 
climate change. This includes cost-shared grants for planning, design, 
and construction of water management improvement projects; water 
reclamation and reuse projects; watershed resilience projects; the 
Basin Study Program; and drought planning and implementation actions to 
proactively address water shortages.
    Reclamation's FY 2025 budget for WaterSMART also includes $500,000 
for the Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Program. Through this program, 
Reclamation provides funding for fish passage improvements and aquatic 
habitat enhancement, including removal of dams or other aging 
infrastructure if such projects are supported by a broad multi-
stakeholder group, and if the project maintains water security for all 
involved. This program aligns with the Administration's priorities for 
climate change and climate resiliency. Reclamation was also 
appropriated $250 million for aquatic ecosystem restoration and 
protection projects in the BIL. The FY 2025 request includes $65.6 
million for the WaterSMART Program.

    Climate Science: Reclamation's FY 2025 budget for Research and 
Development (R&D) programs includes $22.6 million for the Science and 
Technology Program, and $7.0 million for Desalination and Water 
Purification Research--both of which focus on Reclamation's mission of 
water and power deliveries. Climate change adaptation is a focus of 
Reclamation's R&D programs, which invests in the production of climate 
change science, information and tools that benefit adaptation, and by 
yielding climate-resilient solutions to benefit management of water 
infrastructure, hydropower, environmental compliance, and water 
management.
    The Desalination and Water Purification Research program addresses 
drought and water scarcity impacts caused by climate change by 
investing in desalination and water treatment technology development 
and demonstrations for the purpose of more effectively converting 
unusable waters to useable water supplies. The Science and Technology 
program invests in innovation to address the full range of technical 
issues confronting Reclamation water and hydropower managers and 
includes the Snow Water Supply Forecasting Program that aims to improve 
water supply forecasts through enhanced snow monitoring and water 
management to address the impacts of drought and a changing climate.

    Dam Safety: At the time of publication, Reclamation manages 490 
dams throughout the 17 Western States. Reclamation's Dam Safety Program 
has identified 364 high and significant hazard dams at 242 facilities, 
which form the core of the program. Through constant monitoring and 
assessment, Reclamation strives to achieve the best use of its limited 
resources to ensure dam safety and maintain our ability to store and 
divert water and to generate hydropower.
    The Dam Safety Program helps ensure the safety and reliability of 
Reclamation dams to protect the downstream public. Approximately 50 
percent of Reclamation's dams were built between 1900 and 1950, and the 
majority of the dams were built before adoption of currently used, 
state-of-the-art design and construction practices. Reclamation 
continuously evaluates dams and monitors performance to ensure that 
risks do not exceed the Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety Risk 
Management and the Public Protection Guidelines. The Dam Safety Program 
represents a major funding need over the next 10 years, driven largely 
by necessary repairs at B.F. Sisk Dam in California. The B.F. Sisk Dam 
is a key component of the Central Valley Project, providing 2 million 
acre-feet of water storage south of the California Sacramento-San 
Joaquin River Delta. Reclamation is modifying the dam to reduce the 
risk of potential failure resulting from potential overtopping in 
response to a seismic event, using the most current science and 
technology to develop an adaptive and resilient infrastructure. In 
addition to B.F. Sisk, Reclamation has identified 12 projects with 
anticipated modification needs through 2030, as well as 5 additional 
projects that will be assessed for potential risk reduction efforts 
starting in 2024. The FY 2025 request includes $182.6 million to 
support corrective actions at dams, $118 million of which is 
anticipated to support modifications at B.F. Sisk.
    The proposed budget also requests $74.8 million for specific 
Extraordinary Maintenance (XM) activities across Reclamation in FY 
2025. This request is central to mission objectives of operating and 
maintaining projects to ensure delivery of water and power benefits.
    Reclamation's XM request relies on condition assessments, 
condition/performance metrics, technological research and deployment, 
and strategic collaboration to better inform and improve the management 
of its assets and deal with its infrastructure maintenance challenges. 
Reclamation was also appropriated $3.2 billion in the BIL to repair 
aging infrastructure.

    Renewable energy: Reclamation owns 78 hydroelectric power plants. 
Reclamation operates 53 of those plants to generate approximately 14 
percent of the hydroelectric power produced in the United States. Each 
year on average, Reclamation generates approximately 40 million 
megawatt hours of electricity and collects over $1.0 billion in gross 
power revenues for the Federal Government.
    Reclamation's FY 2025 budget request includes $4.5 million to 
increase Reclamation hydropower capabilities and value, contributing to 
Administration clean energy and climate change initiatives and 
enhancing water conservation and climate resilience within the power 
program. Reclamation's Power Resources Office oversees power operations 
and maintenance, electric reliability compliance, and strategic energy 
initiatives.

    Environmental Responsibilities: Reclamation remains committed to 
meeting our environmental responsibilities through a variety of project 
examples throughout the West, such as the Central Valley Project and 
the Middle Rio Grande Collaborative Program. The FY 2025 budget also 
funds Reclamation's Endangered Species Act recovery programs and other 
programs that contribute towards these efforts, such as the Columbia/
Snake River Salmon Recovery Program, the San Juan River Recovery 
Implementation Program, the Upper Colorado Recovery Implementation 
Program, and the Multi-Species Conservation Program within the Lower 
Colorado River Operations Program, among others.
    The investments described in Reclamation's FY 2025 budget, in 
combination with BIL and IRA implementation efforts will ensure that 
Reclamation can continue to provide reliable water and power to the 
American West. Water management, improving and modernizing 
infrastructure, using sound science to support critical decision-
making, finding opportunities to expand capacity, reducing conflict, 
and meeting environmental responsibilities are all addressed in this FY 
2025 budget request. Reclamation continues to look at ways to plan more 
efficiently for future challenges faced in water resources management 
and to improve the way it does business.
    Thank you for the opportunity to present the President's FY 2025 
Budget Request for the Bureau of Reclamation.

                                 ______
 
 
  Questions Submitted for the Record to the Honorable Camille Touton, 
   Commissioner, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the 
                                Interior

The Hon. Camille Touton did not submit responses to the Committee by 
the appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

             Questions Submitted by Representative Grijalva

    Question 1. At the start of this year, the Department's final rule 
for the Implementation of the Native American Graves Protection and 
Repatriation Act went into effect. Within this budget request, there is 
$1.2 million for NAGPRA in the Land Resources Management Program, could 
you share how this funding will be utilized to ensure compliance and 
implementation of the new rule?

    Question 2. Within the budget request, there is $500,000 to support 
Departmental and Reclamation efforts for Tribal Co-Stewardship 
activities. Could you expand on how this funding will be utilized?

    Question 3. The ability to release water from Glen Canyon Dam under 
a wide range of hydrologic conditions is vital for Reclamation's 
effective management of the Colorado River system and to ensure that 
the Quechan Indian Tribe, the other four tribes whose water rights were 
decreed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Arizona v California, and other 
tribes and non-Indian water users in the Lower Basin are able to have 
reliable access to clean and safe drinking water and water to support 
their economies. Recently, Reclamation has identified engineering 
concerns at Glen Canyon Dam related to the ability to release necessary 
water to the Lower Basin through that facility's bypass tubes if Lake 
Powell's elevation drops below elevation 3490 feet, a prospect that 
cannot be ruled out with the challenging hydrology facing the Basin.

    3a) What is in the proposed budget to address the infrastructure 
limitations created by the bypass tubes at Glen Canyon Dam to ensure 
that the Quechan Tribe and other tribes and non-Indian Lower Basin 
water users are not deprived of necessary access to water?

                                 ______

                                
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Commissioner. I now recognize 
Director Williams for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARTHA WILLIAMS, DIRECTOR, U.S.
      FISH  AND  WILDLIFE   SERVICE,  DEPARTMENT  OF  THE
      INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC

    Ms. Williams. Good afternoon, Chairman Bentz, Ranking 
Member Huffman, and members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate 
the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service's 2025 budget request.
    The President's budget for the Fish and Wildlife Service 
totals $1.9 billion, an increase of $163.4 million above the 
2024 enacted level. The budget promotes strategic investments 
to conserve fish and wildlife species that face many stressors. 
It connects Americans with the outdoors. It facilitates 
economic development and creates good-paying jobs.
    The Fish and Wildlife Service is a field-based organization 
that works collaboratively and creatively to meet our 
responsibilities. Our 9,000 dedicated employees carry out our 
work across 8 regional offices and 800 field stations across 
the country. These biologists, refuge managers, hatchery 
operators, law enforcement professionals, maintenance 
professionals, officers, and more depend on relationships to 
help implement our mission in ways that respect local needs and 
fit the places where we work.
    We partner with state, local, and even foreign governments, 
tribes, landowners, scientists, hunters, anglers, outdoor 
recreationists, non-governmental organizations, schools, 
industries, and other Federal agencies. Although we are a 
relatively small agency, these partnerships greatly increase 
our effectiveness and our reach.
    Over the course of my career, and now as Director, I have 
seen this firsthand. As an example, I recently joined our staff 
at the Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge in Alabama to 
celebrate the completion of a mine reclamation project. The 
Fish and Wildlife Service worked side by side with the Alabama 
Department of Labor and other partners to complete the project. 
In addition to ensuring public safety, the project restored 
hydrology and improved water quality. It also opened new access 
to the refuge for the community, expanded hunting 
opportunities, created a 10-acre fishing lake, and added 3.5 
miles of hiking trails. All of this will pay long-term 
dividends for the environment and the economic vibrance of the 
surrounding communities. The celebration brought together the 
mayor, county commissioners, the friends group for the refuge, 
and even the Cahaba Lily Queen, showing strong community 
support for the refuge and this important project.
    Building and sustaining partnerships like these take people 
and resources. However, over the past 20 years, due to 
relentless budget constraints, the Fish and Wildlife Service 
has had to significantly reduce our workforce, stretching our 
ability to do our work safely and proactively to the point of 
snapping.
    The Fish and Wildlife Service has consistently adapted and 
stretched our resources. For example, we seek reimbursable 
agreements to support our staffing needs. Because we do not 
have the capacity to staff each refuge as a stand-alone unit, 
we now administer units of the refuge system under a complex 
structure to achieve management efficiencies.
    And we also innovate. For example, we developed an online 
system that streamlines permitting, allowing project proponents 
to quickly determine whether a project requires Endangered 
Species Act consultation so they don't have to wait in line for 
a response from the government.
    When Congress makes strategic investments like those under 
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the Fish and Wildlife 
Service, together with our partners, has demonstrated that we 
can do great things for wildlife, local economies, communities. 
It has given us a chance to show just what we can achieve 
together. If funded, our budget request would help restore 
capacity in key areas and, as a result, would provide positive 
impacts to people, communities, and habitat. We would maximize 
the budget's investments by leveraging the capacity of our 
partners, tailoring the implementation of our mission to meet 
the conditions and needs of local situations.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you 
today, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may 
have.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Williams follows:]
    
Prepared Statement of Martha Williams, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
                  Service, Department of the Interior

Introduction
    Good morning, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and Members 
of the Subcommittee. I am Martha Williams, Director of the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service (Service). I appreciate the opportunity to testify 
before you today on the Service's Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 budget request. 
The FY 2025 budget promotes strategic investments to: address the 
impacts of climate change on Service trust resources, conserve species 
and habitats, reconnect Americans with the outdoors, facilitate 
economic development, and create good-paying job opportunities.
    The President's Budget for FY 2025 invests in America and 
prioritizes key conservation initiatives while following the Fiscal 
Responsibility Act of 2023. The President's Budget request for the 
Service totals $1.9 billion, an increase of $163.4 million above the FY 
2024 enacted level.
    The mission of the Service is working with others to conserve, 
protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for 
the continuing benefit of the American people. Meeting our mission is 
dependent on the Service leading with our values of collaboration, 
stewardship, integrity, respect, and innovation. The Service is a 
diverse and largely decentralized organization that works 
collaboratively and creatively to meet its conservation and management 
responsibilities. In addition to our headquarters office, the Service 
has eight regional offices and nearly 800 field stations. The backbone 
of the Service is its nearly 9,000 dedicated employees working in our 
regional offices and field stations across the country. The Service's 
headquarters office sets national policy to provide consistency and 
clarity, and stewards and implements most of our international 
conservation work, while the majority of our domestic conservation work 
is carried out on the ground by our regions and field stations. Our 
biologists, refuge managers, hatchery operators, and more build 
relationships at the global, regional, state, Tribal, and local level, 
to implement the Service's mission and carry out our statutory mandates 
in a way that respects local needs and fits the places where we work. 
The Service is a relatively small agency, but our reach is large due to 
the strength of our partnerships with other federal agencies, states, 
Tribes, foreign governments, landowners, scientists, hunters, anglers, 
nongovernmental organizations, industry, and the public. However, 
building and sustaining those partnerships takes people and resources.
    Over the past twenty years the Service's capacity has eroded 
significantly, while at the same time costs and workloads have 
increased, and challenges to wildlife conservation have become more 
complex. In this challenging budget environment, the Service has been 
forced to adapt. We are expanding our partnerships, seeking 
reimbursable agreements to support our staffing needs, establishing 
refuge complexes for management efficiencies, and establishing cross-
programmatic teams to share expertise. The Service continually strives 
to be efficient and innovative with the resources Congress provides to 
us. For example, we continue to enhance our Information for Planning 
and Consultation (IPaC) decision support system to streamline the 
environmental review process. We similarly work to enhance our ePermits 
system to improve electronic permitting for a variety of stakeholders 
and the public. We have also sought good neighbor authority and 
stewardship contracting authority to enable the Service to partner with 
states, Tribes, and counties to conduct ecosystem restoration projects 
on Service lands. While we have found opportunities to adapt and be 
more efficient with the resources we have, these challenging budgets 
have required us to pull back on important partnerships and 
conservation work.
    The Service's FY 2025 budget request seeks to address our needs to 
deliver our mission now and how to build towards the future. Through 
strategic investments like the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, 
commonly referred to as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), the 
Service has shown that when given the resources to accomplish our 
mission, we, together with our partners, can do great things for 
wildlife, local communities, and the economy. If funded, the Service's 
FY 2025 budget request would help restore our capacity and invest in 
key conservation partnerships. My testimony below discusses the 
discretionary portion of our request in greater detail.

Ecological Services

    For over 50 years, the Ecological Services Program has implemented 
the Endangered Species Act (ESA), our country's most important law for 
protecting imperiled fish, wildlife, and plants. The total request for 
the Ecological Services Program for FY 2025 is $338.2 million, an 
increase of $49.9 million above the FY 2024 enacted. The ESA is 
extraordinarily effective at preventing species from going extinct and 
has inspired action to collaboratively conserve at-risk species and 
their habitat before they need to be listed as threatened or 
endangered. Since it was signed into law in 1973, nearly all of the 
species listed under the law are still with us today and many species 
have recovered, been downlisted, or received the necessary conservation 
to not require listing.
    Preventing extinction and recovering listed species has always 
been, and will continue to be, one of the Service's highest priorities. 
Through close collaboration with our federal, state, and Tribal 
partners, and range countries around the world, we have recovered 
species from the brink of extinction, restored critical habitat, and 
applied a balanced approach for building better natural and human 
communities. For example, on January 25, 2023, we celebrated the 
recovery and delisting of five species on the U.S. Navy-owned San 
Clemente Island (San Clemente Island paintbrush, lotus, larkspur, and 
bush-mallow plants and San Clemente Bell's sparrow). This conservation 
success was due to four decades of partnership between the Service and 
the Navy and shows how collaborative conservation can drive species 
recovery. The FY 2025 budget proposes $126.4 million for recovery of 
threatened and endangered species, a $15.9 million increase over the FY 
2024 enacted level. This funding would allow the Service to reduce the 
recovery plan backlog for listed species that do not yet have recovery 
plans, conduct required 5-year reviews of listed species, and allow the 
Service to propose or finalize an estimated 25 delisting or downlisting 
rules. Additionally, funding would be used to catalyze and support high 
priority recovery actions identified in Service recovery plans for 
priority species.
    The Service's work supports economic growth and job creation in the 
U.S. through timely reviews of proposed infrastructure and development 
projects that are consistent with statutory environmental requirements. 
We provide expertise and technical assistance to applicants, 
coordinating early whenever possible. We also continuously seek ways to 
innovate and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our 
environmental review and permitting of projects. A clear example of 
this is the IPaC decision support system, a web-based application that 
allows federal agencies and project proponents to instantly obtain 
official species lists and recommended conservation measures. This 
system was conceived proactively by Service biologists who saw an ever-
increasing consultation workload under flat and declining projected 
budgets. This innovative solution enabled the Service to address rising 
demand through greater efficiency. In the last 5 years, IPaC users 
generated over 115,000 documents using determination keys (DKeys), and 
over half required no further action on the part of the Service or the 
IPaC user. DKeys typically result in a final document in less than 30 
minutes and all administrative logging for Service project tracking is 
completed automatically. This is a huge time savings and win-win for 
the Service, consulting federal agencies, and project proponents.
    However, between 2003 and 2023, our environmental review staff 
decreased by 20 percent, while the number of species listed as 
endangered or threatened under the ESA has risen by 39 percent. This 
degradation of capacity has made it increasingly difficult to achieve 
our mission and meet the needs of federal agencies and applicants in a 
timely manner. To address the increasing needs for consultation in a 
growing economy, the Service is requesting $146.6 million for planning 
and consultation, a $28.4 million increase over the FY 2024 enacted 
level.
    Additionally, the Service is requesting $23.9 million for listing 
activities, a $1.9 million increase over the FY 2024 enacted level. The 
Service is requesting $41.2 million for conservation and restoration 
activities, a $3.6 million increase over the FY 2024 enacted level. 
These investments will put key staff on the ground to work with 
partners and the public to carry out the essential mandates of the ESA 
and facilitate important development projects.

National Wildlife Refuge System

    The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) 
is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the 
conservation, management, and restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant 
resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit 
of present and future generations of Americans. The Refuge System spans 
all 50 States and 5 U.S. Territories, with more than 856 million acres 
of lands and waters, and includes 571 national wildlife refuges, 38 
wetland management districts, 48 coordination areas, seven National 
Monuments, and 760 million acres in Marine National Monuments. In 
addition to conservation, the Refuge System delivers outdoor recreation 
and economic benefits to local communities. According to the Service's 
2017 Banking on Nature report, the economic impact on local communities 
from recreation visits totaled $3.2 billion, and the Refuge System 
generates $1.1 billion in job income and over 41,000 jobs nationally.
    In FY 2023, the Refuge System hosted a record-breaking 67 million 
visits to national wildlife refuges, an increase of 46.6 percent since 
FY 2011. This shows the growing importance of our national wildlife 
refuges to the public. Without adequate staffing, our ability to safely 
manage and welcome visitors is strained. To begin to address this 
capacity need as well as on-the-ground conservation and public 
engagement, the Service is requesting a total of $602.3 million for the 
Refuge System, $75.3 million above the FY 2024 enacted level. This 
requested additional funding will position the Refuge System to meet 
expected increased demands for access, visitation, and ecological 
functioning.
    At current funding levels, the Service maintains 125 visitor 
facilities, most of which are wholly volunteer-operated, have limited 
hours of operation, or are staffed by administrative officers or refuge 
managers as collateral duties. The FY 2025 budget request includes 
$93.6 million for visitor services, an increase of $17.6 million over 
the FY 2024 enacted level. The majority of this funding would be used 
to ensure safer operations at existing facilities and contribute to 
rebuilding the visitor services workforce, focusing on entry-level 
positions to greet visitors, teach students, engage communities, and 
coordinate volunteer programs.
    Similarly, the Department of the Interior's (Department) Law 
Enforcement Task Force found that Refuge System law enforcement has had 
a 28 percent reduction from its 15-year high officer base, the highest 
of all the Department's bureaus. To address this need, the Service's FY 
2025 budget request includes $63.4 million for Refuge System law 
enforcement, an increase of $17.9 million over the FY 2024 enacted 
level. This funding would enable the Service to hire an additional 48 
officers, bringing the Service closer to the International Associations 
of Chiefs of Police recommended minimum number of officers and 
enhancing the protection of the Refuge System and its visitors. It 
would also support additional needs of Refuge System Law Enforcement.
    The number of units in the Refuge System has increased over the 
past ten years, changing staffing and expertise needed to fulfill the 
Service's stewardship responsibilities. The Service's FY 2025 budget 
request includes $280.4 million for wildlife and habitat management on 
the Refuge System, an increase of $25.7 million over the FY 2024 
enacted level. This funding would enable the Service to fill vacancies 
in the Refuge System that support scientific studies, habitat 
restoration and management, landscape conservation, and climate 
resiliency, as well as implementation of the National Seed Strategy, 
subsistence management and Tribal co-stewardship.
    The Refuge System maintains over 44,000 assets representing over 
$58 billion in public investments, including 6,400 buildings, 17,500 
roads, bridges, and trails, 8,700 water management structures, and 
11,400 other real property assets. A robust maintenance workforce is 
required for responsible rehabilitation, maintenance, and construction 
of Service infrastructure. The FY 2025 budget requests $160.1 million 
for Refuge System maintenance, an increase of $12.1 million over the FY 
2024 enacted level. This additional funding would be used to build 
capacity in our infrastructure workforce and address deferred 
maintenance as well as annual maintenance needs across the Refuge 
System.
    Additionally, the Service's FY 2025 budget request includes $68.1 
million for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife (Partners) Program, a 
$9.1 million increase over the FY 2024 enacted level. This voluntary, 
community-based program supports important conservation initiatives for 
wildlife and habitat on private lands. The program is emblematic of how 
the Service carries out its mission through on-the-ground 
implementation that leverages the capabilities of partners and is 
tailored to fit the needs and aspects of the local community. Since 
inception, the program has restored more than 7 million acres of 
habitat while leveraging program funding with partner contributions at 
a ratio of greater than 4:1. The Partners Program also yields 
significant economic benefits for local communities. The Service's 2017 
report titled ``Restoration Returns: The Contribution of Partners for 
Fish and Wildlife Program and Coastal Program Restoration Projects to 
Local U.S. Economies'' found that every dollar the Partners for Fish 
and Wildlife Program invested in a project creates $6.15 in local 
economic returns. Additionally, a recent report developed by the Jobs 
Through Restoration and Resilience Sub-Team of the Service's National 
America the Beautiful Team identified that every $1.0 million in FY 
2022 spending under the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program 
supported 12.28 jobs.

Migratory Birds

    The Migratory Bird Program is the premier federal leader in 
migratory bird conservation and manages birds in the U.S. and 
internationally through effective partnerships, applied science, and 
innovative strategies. Migratory birds provide significant benefits to 
our ecosystems and economy. They pollinate, control pests, and support 
recreational opportunities. The 2022 National Survey of Fishing, 
Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation Report estimated that the 
2.8 million migratory bird hunters and 96 million bird watchers in the 
U.S. spent billions of dollars participating in these activities.
    However, migratory birds are experiencing significant population 
declines. In 2019, a report published in Science found that 3 billion 
breeding birds have been lost since 1970 in North America. Habitat 
loss, invasive species, climate change, disease and human-caused 
mortality are among the leading drivers for bird declines. The mission 
of the Migratory Bird Program is as relevant and important today as it 
was at the inception of the Service: to ensure a legacy of healthy bird 
populations for the American people. The Service's FY 2025 budget 
request includes a total of $73.1 million for the Migratory Bird 
Program, a $19.9 million increase over the FY 2024 enacted level.
    The Migratory Bird Program provides expertise in the conservation 
and management of over 1,100 species protected under the Migratory Bird 
Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle 
Act) and 269 species included in the Birds of Conservation Concern. 
Migratory Bird Program staff develop decision-support tools and 
guidance for energy, infrastructure, and other development projects to 
avoid and minimize impacts to migratory birds. They also provide 
technical assistance and implement bird conservation partnerships under 
Partners in Flight and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Partnership.
    The Migratory Bird Program is also responsible for the continental-
wide monitoring of migratory bird species, including waterfowl banding, 
aerial population surveys, and hunter harvest surveys. The Service's 
six-decade history of migratory bird monitoring data provides a unique 
perspective on shifting bird distributions and habitat conditions 
across North America over time. These rich datasets allow the Service 
to evaluate population shifts, migration chronology, and productivity, 
and prioritize land acquisition for the Refuge System and population 
goals for the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Additionally, 
this data is used to set and evaluate migratory bird hunting seasons.
    Each year the Service conducts extensive migratory game bird 
surveys and bird banding programs across North America that provide 
valuable information about bird population, harvest, and habitat. 
Results from these surveys provide the foundation for the establishment 
of annual hunting seasons for migratory game birds. The Service is 
struggling to maintain its critical role in monitoring migratory game 
bird species abundance and establishing annual hunting regulations due 
to funding and workforce constraints. The Service's FY 2025 budget 
request includes $40.9 million for conservation and monitoring, a $10.5 
million increase over the FY 2024 enacted level. A portion of this 
funding will address capacity gaps and allow the Service to pursue 
enhancements and efficiencies in its monitoring activities and current 
harvest management processes. This increase will also provide targeted 
investments in partner engagement, monitoring, technical assistance, 
conservation planning, on-the-ground conservation delivery, and 
promoting bird-friendly practices.
    The Service's FY 2025 budget request also includes $13.4 million 
for migratory birds permitting, an increase of $8.0 million over the FY 
2024 enacted level. With increasing infrastructure and energy 
development, the Service has also seen a rise in workload related to 
permitting reviews under the MBTA and Eagle Act. This funding increase 
would support capacity for migratory birds permitting staff, including 
in the Service's regional offices. The FY 2025 budget request also 
includes $1.1 million for the Federal Duck Stamp Program, an increase 
of $547,000 over the FY 2024 enacted level. A portion of this increase 
would be used to implement the new mandates of the Duck Stamp 
Modernization Act of 2023, recently enacted by Congress.
    Additionally, the Service's FY 2025 budget request includes $17.6 
million for the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and Migratory 
Bird Joint Ventures (JVs), an increase of $828,000 over the FY 2024 
enacted level. JVs are another example of the Service creating 
partnerships to further our mission in a way that fits regional needs 
on behalf of the American people. Each JV is a network of regional, 
self-directed partnerships involving federal, state, and local 
governments; corporations; individuals; and non-governmental 
organizations. JVs are a model for collaborative conservation in the 
21st century, using state-of-the-art science and public and private 
resources to ensure diverse habitat is available to sustain migratory 
bird populations. The increased funding would achieve target funding 
levels for all 21 JVs across the country.

Fish and Aquatic Conservation

    The world's rivers and lakes once teemed with abundant and diverse 
communities of fish, invertebrates, and plants. However, aquatic 
species now represent some of the most imperiled organisms on the 
planet. Increasing impacts from habitat loss, fragmentation, aquatic 
invasive species, pollution, and climate change threaten America's 
freshwater ecosystems and native fish populations, which provide 
important benefits to communities, local economies, and the broader 
environment. The Service's Fish and Aquatic Conservation Program 
addresses these challenges by collaborating with states, Tribes, 
landowners, federal agencies, and other partners to conserve aquatic 
species and ecosystems. This includes conservation work through our 
National Fish Hatchery System (Hatchery System), population 
assessments, habitat restoration and connectivity, and aquatic invasive 
species control. As the threats to freshwater ecosystems and native 
fish species have increased and changed, so must our tools, expertise, 
partnerships, and strategies. For FY 2025, the Service is seeking to 
increase and enhance actions to conserve native aquatic species and 
their habitats with a total request of $239.3 million for the Fish and 
Aquatic Conservation Program, an increase of $12.6 million above the FY 
2024 enacted level.
    The work of the Fish and Aquatic Conservation Program not only 
benefits aquatic ecosystems, it also creates and maintains outdoor 
recreation opportunities, yielding benefits for local economies. 
Fishing and other aquatic-based recreational opportunities are multi-
cultural, multi-generational experiences that improve the quality of 
life for American families from all facets of our diverse society, and 
generate substantial economic returns for local communities. The 2022 
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation 
reports nearly 40 million anglers, age 16 or older, went fishing in 
2022, spending a combined $99.4 billion, with the average angler 
spending $2,490 per year. And according to the Recreational Boating and 
Fishing Foundation's special report on fishing activities, roughly 54.5 
million Americans went fishing in 2023.
    For over 150 years, the Hatchery System has served communities 
across the U.S. Today, the Hatchery System consists of 71 National Fish 
Hatcheries, one historic National Fish Hatchery, six Fish Health 
Centers (Health Centers), seven Fish Technology Centers (Tech Centers), 
and the Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership Program. The Service's 
captive rearing facilities produce over 150 million fish and other 
aquatic organisms each year to aid in the recovery of threatened and 
endangered species, restore imperiled species, mitigate the impact of 
federal water development projects on fish populations, meet Tribal 
trust responsibilities, and enhance recreational and commercial fishing 
opportunities. The Service's FY 2025 budget request includes $80.3 
million for fish hatchery operations, an increase of $5.2 million over 
the FY 2024 enacted level. This funding will focus on propagating fish 
and other aquatic species to carry out Tribal trust responsibilities 
and sustain wild populations, including actions to help prevent the 
further decline of at-risk species and reduce the need for listings 
under the ESA. The FY 2025 request also includes $31.6 million for 
Hatchery System maintenance, a $7 million increase over the FY 2024 
enacted level. This funding would help address the annual and deferred 
maintenance needs of the Hatchery System.
    Across the nation, millions of barriers to fish passage and aquatic 
connectivity have compromised the ability of waterways to sustain 
healthy fish populations and ecosystems. Barriers like old culverts, 
dams, and levees, can also lead to public safety hazards, water quality 
degradation, and higher water treatment costs. Utilizing its national 
network of fish biologists and engineers, the Service works with 
partners to restore natural flows to streams, rivers, floodplains, and 
tidal areas, restore riparian areas and wetlands, remove barriers to 
fish passage and aquatic connectivity, and improve water quality. The 
investments in this work will pay valuable benefits far into the future 
as natural systems improve in health year after year once aquatic 
connectivity is restored.
    This is another example of the Service working on the ground to 
deliver our conservation mission on behalf of the American people, in 
ways that fit the local circumstances. In addition to the lasting 
benefits to fish and wildlife, the Service's work to restore degraded 
habitats benefits local communities through development of more 
resilient infrastructure, reduced public safety hazards, and improved 
recreational opportunities. The Service's FY 2025 budget request 
includes $18.6 million for fish passage improvements, an increase of 
$3.6 million over the FY 2024 enacted level. The Service will also 
continue to implement BIL funding for fish passage in FY 2025, building 
on our success and collaborative work with partners on priority 
projects.
    Invasive species are a significant threat to human, animal, and 
plant health, infrastructure, the economy, and cultural resources. The 
Service plays a critical role in safeguarding the Nation's waters from 
aquatic invasive species by preventing introduction, detecting and 
responding to new invasions, and suppressing populations of existing 
invasive plants and animals. In FY 2025, the Service will prioritize 
prevention efforts, which are the most cost-effective strategy to 
minimize the long-term risk and impacts of invasive species. The FY 
2025 budget request includes $10.4 million for prevention, an increase 
of $7.7 million over the FY 2024 enacted level. Funding would be used 
to establish a pilot Aquatic Invasive Species Rapid Response Fund and 
to build capacity in the Fish and Aquatic Conservation Program to 
conduct early detection surveillance within invasion hotspots and 
points of entry into the U.S. as part of a nationally coordinated Early 
Detection and Rapid Response Framework developed under BIL.

Science Applications

    The Science Applications Program works across the Service's 
programs and with partners to addresses complex conservation challenges 
through voluntary, landscape-level partnerships and the innovative 
application of science and data management. The Service's FY 2025 
request includes a total of $37.9 million for the Science Applications 
Program, an increase of $4.1 million over the FY 2024 enacted level.
    Collaborative conservation is among the most effective methods to 
meet the enormous and diverse conservation challenges facing our 
nation. For more than a decade, the Service's Science Applications' 
Science Partnerships program has built trust with partners, 
successfully fostering regional, national, and international 
collaborations to identify shared conservation goals and deliver 
conservation actions. For example, the Science Partnerships program 
plays a central leadership, collaboration, and technical assistance 
role for the Center for Pollinator Conservation, which is conducting 
pollinator inventory and monitoring with the Refuge System and milkweed 
distribution analysis with the Monarch Joint Venture. Science 
Partnerships is also supporting implementation of the 2023 memorandum 
of understanding between the Service, National Alliance of Forest 
Owners, and National Council for Air and Stream Improvement through 
collaborative science and technical project management. The Service's 
FY 2025 budget request includes $27.3 million for Science Partnerships, 
an increase of $2.3 million over the FY 2024 enacted level. This 
funding would be used to further support partnership conservation 
initiatives and build capacity, including for data managers and 
geospatial mapping technicians to better incorporate information in 
collaboration with our partners.

Office of Law Enforcement

    There is a significant amount of trade involving wildlife that 
occurs globally and within our nation's borders. The legal trade of 
wildlife into and out of the U.S. alone is valued at several billion 
dollars a year. This trade provides great benefits to Americans, but 
the high market value for wildlife creates incentives for bad actors to 
circumvent wildlife laws for ill-gotten financial gain. The Office of 
Law Enforcement is the investigative arm of the Service tasked with 
enforcing our wildlife laws. Our special agents, attaches, wildlife 
inspectors, intelligence analysts, forensic scientists, and other staff 
serve on the front lines to regulate the wildlife trade, investigate 
wildlife crimes, prevent the introduction of invasive species, and 
partner with international, Tribal, federal, and state counterparts to 
conserve and protect wildlife resources. The Service's FY 2025 budget 
request includes a total of $110.8 million for the Office of Law 
Enforcement, a $18.9 million increase over the FY 2024 level.
    The ever-changing nature and growing complexity of wildlife crime 
has required the Office of Law Enforcement to adapt, develop innovative 
techniques, and expand our partnerships and our presence across the 
globe. Many wildlife crimes were once predominantly crimes of 
opportunity committed by individuals or small groups. Today, wildlife 
trafficking is largely carried out by transnational criminal 
organizations that are sophisticated, violent, and capable of illegally 
moving large commercial volumes of wildlife and laundering its 
proceeds. These transnational criminal organizations also traffic in 
people, weapons, narcotics, and other contraband.
    In addition to our domestic special agents, the Service also has 11 
personnel (10 attaches and one intelligence analyst) stationed 
internationally. Our attaches partner with foreign governments, share 
and coordinate intelligence, support and assist with investigations, 
and provide training. The Service also manages the National Fish and 
Wildlife Forensics Laboratory, the world's only full-service crime 
laboratory devoted exclusively to supporting wildlife law enforcement. 
Additionally, the Service manages the Digital Evidence Recovery and 
Technical Support Unit, which supports the retrieval and analysis of 
computer-based records and advanced digital surveillance techniques, 
which is critical as wildlife crime has moved increasingly online. The 
Service's domestic agents, attaches, intelligence analysts, forensic 
scientists, and inspection teams work together to combat the illegal 
wildlife trade. In FY 2023, the Service conducted over 9,600 wildlife 
crime investigations, which resulted in ordered restitution of $1.9 
million in fines, $1.0 million in civil penalties, 64 years in prison, 
and 222 years of probation. Wildlife trafficking remains a serious 
threat to conservation, national security, economic prosperity, global 
health, and community stability. The Service's FY 2025 budget request 
includes an increase of $8.9 million over the FY 2024 enacted level to 
support, equip, and expand the capacity of our law enforcement 
workforce and to implement the Department's Law Enforcement Task Force 
priorities.
    The U.S. remains one of the world's largest markets for wildlife 
and wildlife products, both legal and illegal. The Service's Wildlife 
Inspection Program is based at U.S. ports of entry and monitors the 
wildlife trade, processes legal shipments, intercepts wildlife 
contraband, prevents the introduction of invasive species, and works 
with special agents to support wildlife trafficking investigations. In 
FY 2023, the Service's wildlife inspectors processed nearly 175,000 
declared wildlife shipments and facilitated legal trade valued at over 
$4.6 billion. The Wildlife Inspection Program faces a critical juncture 
as international wildlife trade expands in complexity, and 
responsibilities have evolved beyond facilitating legal imports and 
exports. Funding for the Service's wildlife inspectors is based on user 
fees, which have not increased since 2012. The Service's FY 2025 budget 
request includes an increase of $10.0 million over the FY 2024 enacted 
level to support the Wildlife Inspection Program. This increase would 
enable the Service to modernize technology to enhance risk analysis and 
inspection efficiency, increase special operations nationally to target 
high-risk trade routes, bolster biosafety measures, increase capacity 
at ports of entry, and strategically deploy K9 interdiction teams.

International Affairs

    Global biodiversity faces ever-growing and evolving threats, 
including climate change, wildlife trafficking, rapid habitat loss, and 
disease, which are pushing species to extinction and threatening human 
well-being in many parts of the world. The Service has engaged in 
international conservation for more than a century, starting with the 
1916 Migratory Bird Treaty with Canada. The Service's International 
Affairs Program has a long history of implementing global treaties and 
agreements, diplomatic engagement with foreign nations, collaborating 
with global partners to implement on-the-ground conservation, and 
supporting research and trainings abroad. The work of the International 
Affairs Program is critical to stemming global biodiversity loss and 
conserving some of the world's most iconic wildlife species, including 
African and Asian elephants, tigers, rhinoceros, great apes, sea 
turtles, scarlet macaws, and cheetahs. The Service's FY 2025 budget 
request includes $24.0 million for the International Affairs Program, 
an increase of $2.9 million over the FY 2024 enacted level. The Service 
is also requesting to move funding for the ePermits system into its own 
line to reflect the cross-bureau nature of that effort.
    For over 50 years, the Service's International Affairs Program has 
served as the implementing body for the Convention on International 
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) through the 
Divisions of Management and Scientific Authorities. CITES provides a 
global framework to ensure scientific integrity and international 
cooperation to facilitate legal, sustainable trade of the over 37,000 
species listed in the CITES Appendices, and to combat wildlife 
trafficking. The International Affairs Program implements CITES by 
leading U.S. engagement at CITES meetings, ensuring that U.S. exports 
and imports comply with CITES requirements, and supporting CITES 
capacity-building efforts around the world. The Service's FY 2025 
budget request would support the Service's preparations for the 20th 
meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES, which will take 
place in mid-2025. It will also help address the Service's CITES permit 
workload through greater efficiencies.
    The Service's International Affairs Program also implements the 
Pelly Amendment to the Fishermen's Protective Act (Pelly), which 
authorizes the President to prohibit import of products from nations 
whose nationals are determined by the Secretary of the Interior or 
Commerce to be engaging in trade or take that undermines the 
effectiveness of any international treaty or convention for the 
protection of endangered or threatened species. In 2023, the Secretary 
of the Interior, in consultation with the Department of State, issued 
two Pelly certifications to the President, finding that nationals of 
Mexico and the People's Republic of China (PRC), directly or 
indirectly, engaged in harvest or trade that diminishes the 
effectiveness of CITES. In Mexico, the concern is illegal fishing for 
and illegal trade in the totoaba, which is causing the imminent 
extinction of the vaquita, the world's smallest and most endangered 
marine mammal, with fewer than 10 individuals remaining. In the PRC, 
the concern is the illegal trade in pangolins, the most trafficked 
mammal in the world. The Service's FY 2025 budget request would support 
implementation of Pelly, including ongoing efforts regarding the 
certifications of Mexico and the PRC.
    The International Affairs Program supports on-the-ground 
conservation for priority species and habitats across the globe, 
including through the Multinational Species Conservation Funds (Species 
Funds). The Species Funds support strategic on-the-ground conservation 
projects for African elephants, Asian elephants, rhinoceros, tigers, 
great apes, marine turtles, and freshwater turtles and tortoises. From 
2015 to 2022, the Species Funds provided $92.5 million in grants and 
cooperative agreements and leveraged nearly $200 million in additional 
funds towards conserving these species. The Service's FY 2025 budget 
request also includes $21.0 million for the Species Funds, a $500,000 
increase over the FY 2024 enacted level. This increase would enable the 
Service to support additional conservation needs for priority species 
and their habitats.

Legislative Proposals

    The Service's FY 2025 budget request includes a legislative 
proposal to provide the Service with good neighbor and stewardship 
contracting authorities. The good neighbor authority allows states, 
counties, and Tribes to enter into a Good Neighbor Agreement to perform 
forest, rangeland, and watershed restoration work on Service lands. 
Authorized restoration services include treating insect- and disease-
infested trees, reducing hazardous fuels, and any other activities to 
restore or improve ecosystem health, including fish and wildlife 
habitat. Stewardship contracting authority will allow the Service to 
trade forest products for land management and ecosystem restoration 
services. While the Service was provided good neighbor authority in the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024, we would appreciate the 
opportunity to continue working with the Chairman and Subcommittee on 
further technical assistance to meet the needs of the Service and 
provide stewardship contracting authority as well.
    The FY 2025 budget request also includes a legislative proposal to 
allow persons responsible for harm to Service assets--not taxpayers--to 
pay for any injury they cause. Under current law, when Service 
resources are injured or destroyed, the costs of repair and restoration 
falls upon the appropriated budget for the affected field station or 
office. This is the case even when parties are ordered to pay 
restitution. Unlike some other land management agencies, the Service 
only has criminal penalties (fines) for those injuries occurring on 
Service property. In most cases, the injuries far exceed any fines 
recovered by the U.S. Government. With this authority, the recovery of 
damages for injury to Service resources would be used to reimburse 
assessment costs, prevent or minimize the risk of loss, monitor ongoing 
effects, and/or use those funds to restore, replace, or acquire 
resources equivalent to those injured or destroyed.
    The Service's FY 2025 budget request also supports revising 
administrative amounts for both the North American Wetlands 
Conservation Act (NAWCA) and Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation 
Act (NMBCA) to better keep pace with administrative needs. For NAWCA, 
this would mean increasing the administrative cap from four percent to 
seven percent to address increased administrative requirements and help 
our partners address threats to wetland dependent species and recover 
populations. For NMBCA, this would mean increasing the administrative 
cap from three percent to five percent and further lower match 
requirements passed in the Migratory Birds of the Americas Conservation 
Enhancements Act of 2023 from 2:1 to 1:1 to encourage a wider variety 
of bird conservation partners.
    The FY 2025 budget request also includes a proposal to grant 
authority for federal agencies to transfer funding provided under BIL 
to the Service to meet the consultation and environmental review 
workload for BIL projects. The Service appreciates Congress' inclusion 
of this authority in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024. The 
Service is currently working to implement this newly provided 
authority.

Conclusion

    The Service's FY 2025 budget request invests in America and 
prioritizes key conservation initiatives while following the Fiscal 
Responsibility Act of 2023. The Service strives to be efficient and 
innovative with the limited resources we have. However, over the past 
twenty years the Service's capacity has declined, while costs and 
workloads have increased, and wildlife conservation challenges have 
become more complex. The Service is in a moment where our decreased 
capacity is eroding our on-the ground conservation efforts.
    If funded, the Service's FY 2025 budget request would help restore 
our capacity and invest in key conservation partnerships. The Service 
would maximize the budget's investments by building upon our experience 
in developing partnerships, leveraging the capacity of our partners, 
and tailoring the implementation of our mission to meet the conditions 
and needs of local situations.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you today. I 
would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.

                                 ______

                                
 Questions Submitted for the Record to the Honorable Martha Williams, 
                Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The Hon. Martha Williams did not submit responses to the Committee by 
the appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

              Questions Submitted by Representative Bentz

    Question 1. September 2023 the White House published the Memorandum 
on Restoring Healthy and Abundant Salmon, Steelhead, and Other Native 
Fish Populations in the Columbia River Basin. Among other things, the 
memo directed ``all agencies with applicable authorities and 
responsibilities'' to provide the Office of Management and Budget''an 
assessment of the agency's programs that can advance the policy 
established in section 1 of this memorandum.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Healthy and Abundant Memo. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-
room/presidential-actions/2023/09/27/memorandum-on-restoring-healthy-
and-abundant-salmon-steelhead-and-other-native-fish-populations-in-the-
columhia-river-basin/#::text=In%20recognition%20of%20these%20 
priorities.abundant%20salmon%2C%20steelhead%2C%20and%20other

    1a) What authorities or programs did the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service provide to the Office of Management and Budget to carry out the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
policy established in this memorandum?

    Question 2. With regard to the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts 
Marine National Monument, in March 2021, a 1-hour conference call was 
conducted in which affected members of the fishing industry were given 
less than 5 minutes each to explain their reasons for opposing a 
reimposition of the commercial fishing ban to DOI staff. One of the 
more severely affected groups, the swordfish and tuna harvesters, 
reached out to DOI repeatedly via phone, letters and email, requesting 
a meeting so that members of the swordfish and tuna longline industry 
could explain why analyses funded by environmental interests claiming 
that the commercial fishing ban had no negative effect on their 
fisheries were inaccurate.

    Their correspondence was acknowledged upon receipt by Shantha Ready 
Alonso, Director of the Office of Intergovernmental and External 
Affairs (OIEA), but despite numerous follow-up calls and emails, they 
received no response to their request. In December 2021, they received 
a form letter from Martha Williams of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service stating that two months earlier, President Biden signed 
Presidential Proclamation 10287 ``Northeast Canyons and Seamounts 
Marine National Monument'' reimposing the prohibition on commercial 
fishing.

    Did you or your staff meet with any fishing interests affected by 
the commercial fishing prohibition in the Northeast Canyons and 
Seamounts Marine National Monument before President Biden signed 
Presidential Proclamation 10287?

    2a) If so, with whom did you meet?

    2b) If so, were any of the groups with whom you or your staff met 
organizations that accept support, financial or otherwise, from 
environmental or conservation organizations or their funding sources?

    Question 3. The U.S. Department of the Interior press release on 
several monuments issued on October 7, 2021, referenced ``rare and 
endangered marine life,'' specifically mentioning deep-sea corals. 
Deep-sea corals in the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National 
Monument were already protected through previous actions taken by the 
New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils and approved 
by National Marine Fisheries Service, which protected those important 
species without hindering the ability of fisheries operating in the 
region from operating sustainably under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

    3a) What additional protection is afforded by prohibiting 
commercial fishing activity in the water column above the bottom 
habitat of those species?

               Questions Submitted by Representative Carl

    Question 1. Director Williams, adequate funding for the management 
of migratory birds and their habitat is critically important, wouldn't 
you agree? As you are likely aware, state fish and wildlife agencies 
rely on the valuable data derived from USFWS surveys and science to 
justify seasons, monitor trends, and weigh management decisions. As 
such I am deeply concerned that the proposed presidential FY25 budget 
for aspects of the Service's Migratory Bird Management (MBM) program 
hasn't risen to the level of need identified for some of the MBM 
program's most critical needs.

    Specifically I'd like to point to the Conservation and Monitoring 
Account, which is proposed to be funded at $40.8M, that falls grossly 
short of what states and partners have identified ($53 million) as what 
is needed to support key needs for population monitoring and surveys, 
research, technical assistance and guidance, and species conflict 
reduction.

    1a) Coupled with the significant cut to NAWCA and I worry about the 
message that is being sent about Federal waterfowl and wetland habitat 
efforts. Can you please outline for me how the Service intends to meet 
the critical needs for waterfowl monitoring at the requested funding 
level?

    1b) So if the need is higher than the request, what is a higher 
priority for the Service that these important surveys and NAWCA cannot 
be adequately funded?

    Question 2. BIDEH--Director Williams, we have heard on multiple 
occasions about the need for more funding for the National Wildlife 
Refuge System (NWRS). If the need is as great as you have suggested, 
why would the Service advance a rule. and I am referring to the BIDEH 
rule, that has the potential to significantly restrict cooperative 
conservation efforts on the NWRS, not to mention add significant 
administrative burden and costs to a system you believe is not 
adequately funded?

    To expand refuge boundaries (as you have recently proposed), to add 
administrative burden on your refuge staff, and then prohibit practices 
like cooperative agriculture just doesn't add up. I hope you are giving 
serious thought to rescinding or significantly retooling your proposed 
BIDEH rule.

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman

    Question 1. In March, you issued a report, the 2019 National 
Wetlands Status and Trends report that found that 221 million acres of 
wetlands were destroyed between 2009 and 2019. Most of that loss was 
from vegetated wetlands like marshes and swamps, which shrank by 
670,000 acres, an area roughly the size of Rhode Island.

    That same month, the Service budget proposed a significant 35 
percent reduction in one of the most popular and effective wetland 
programs in our country, one that has had strong bipartisan support and 
is up for reauthorization this year. That $17M reduction is more than a 
haircut.

    Under NAWCA, that $17M cut would leverage more than $17M in 
additional partner contributions under the program's match requirements 
and we often see more than that in private support. In fact, since 
1991, NAWCA grants totaling over $2 billion have leveraged almost $5.6 
billion in contributions from partners. This funding has vastly 
exceeded match requirements, enabling the successful restoration of 
more than 32 million acres of wetlands and associated uplands in North 
America.

    So, you ring the alarm that we have a problem and then purposely 
cut funding to address the problem. What message are you trying to 
send? How do you justify this troubling cut to NAWCA?

    Question 2. In testimony given to this subcommittee last month, the 
Services Deputy Director for Policy Steve Guertin stated ``my 
understanding is that all of our staffed refuges have at least one 
biologist.'' When pressed further, Mr. Guertin stated that he didn't 
believe there were any refuges without a biologist. We tried to follow 
up to clarify the inconsistencies in his responses through questions 
for the record, but we've yet to hear back from the Department.

    Which is it--do all staffed refuges have a biologist, or does every 
refuge have a biologist?

    Question 3. The U.S. is a party to the Convention on International 
Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna. As you know, CITES is 
the international treaty that controls the international trade of 
threatened and endangered species. When countries attend CITES meetings 
and vote to uplist or downlist certain species, those decisions are to 
be based on sound science. In some cases, the United States has voted 
to not uplist a species only to return home and begin regulations to 
list under the ESA that very species. In other cases, the science is 
clear that the species is not worthy of uplisting based on CITES 
requirements, yet the Service has voted to uplist it. At one point, a 
US attendee even asked an official from the Department how these 
decisions are made, and the official responded by saying, ``We fly by 
the seat of our pants.'' Do you agree that these decisions should be 
based on science and not politics? How can Service improve their 
decision-making process to be more transparent and base decisions on 
science?

    Question 4. CITES requires a notification to range states of 
stricter domestic measures than agreed to by CITES. Have these 
notifications been made to the range states that manage African 
Elephants or hippos? How have they been provided?

    Question 5. When the Service decides to make a rulemaking on a 
species that does not reside in the US, the Service is supposed to 
consult with the countries that do manage these species--yet many times 
that does not happen in any meaningful way. How can the US write a rule 
for a species in another country, not consult with that country, and 
expect the rule to be effective? I know you will say that these 
countries may comment during the public comment period, but wouldn't it 
be more prudent and waste less time to put out a draft rule where 
consultation has already occurred with the other management authority 
tasked with managing these animals every day? Does the Service send any 
employees to range states that must manage populations for which the US 
is proposing restrictions under ESA?

    Question 6. Has the Service consulted with foreign management 
authorities on the development and implementation of regulations under 
the Endangered Species Act? If so, please provide a list. In what 
format have these consultations occurred? Does the Service have 
designated personnel to liaise with foreign management authorities on 
Endangered Species Act implementation issues?

    Question 7. The Secretary has talked at great lengths about 
including tribes and Indigenous peoples in the work that they do 
domestically--and tribes should be included. Why then are Indigenous 
peoples abroad not considered in rulemakings that will impact them? Do 
you reach out to Indigenous communities before writing a rule in a 
foreign country that will impact them and the animals they live with 
every day?

    Question 8. Service's e-Permit system launched in 2020 continues to 
fail to accept applicant information and deliver permits in a timely 
manner; however, permit fees are deposited quickly. Federal agencies 
and the regulated public are frustrated and worried when permits expire 
and a renewal is not delivered for months after expiration. What 
actions is the Service taking to rectify this problem? When will the 
system begin to work properly?

    Question 9. Populations of double-crested cormorants are increasing 
and establishing new breeding colonies. However, the national take 
allocation of 121,504 birds established by a 2020 Final Environmental 
Impact Statement for the Management of Conflicts Associated with 
Double-crested Cormorants for Federal, state and public entities 
through bird depredation permits has riot been revised to reflect the 
growing challenges for agencies, tribes, and farms. Is the Service 
aware of the growing bird populations? Is there a periodic reassessment 
of the Population Take Model and re-allocation to permit holders as 
provided within the 2020 EIS? If not, when will the Service reassess 
and reallocate?

    Question 10. Congress authorized the Department of Interior to list 
species through the Endangered Species Act, Section 4(c)(1), specifying 
``. . . with respect to each such species over what portion of its 
range it is endangered or threatened . . .'' However, within the Code 
of Federal Regulations the majority of threatened and endangered 
species are listed as ``wherever found.'' Why, how, and when did the 
Department decide to ignore Congressional direction?

    Question 11. The Endangered Species Act authorizes the United 
States as a party to the CITES. This authorization includes explicit 
language that the United States ``. . . has pledged itself as a 
sovereign state in the international community . . .'' to implement 
actions to control import and export of CITES listed species. However, 
the Department of Interior continues to list foreign species under the 
ESA that are also protected by CITES trade restrictions. Is the ESA 
listing of these species an implicit admission by the Department there 
is a failure by the United States to implement CITES provisions? How 
does an ESA listing increase protections that are globally negotiated 
and are essentially duplicative in preventing or restricting trade? Is 
CITES a failure?

    Question 12. Recently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service halted 
all imports or re-exports of non human primates (NHPs), or research 
samples derived from NHPs imported from Cambodia, forcing American 
biotech companies to scramble for new sources. The Service's stated 
reason for suspending permits involved an enforcement action which has 
now been rejected in a US court by both judge and jury. Is the Service 
committed to re-opening trade in purpose bred Cambodian NHPs?

    Question 13. Has the Service taken steps to expedite the processing 
of permits that were put on hold during the unsuccessful enforcement 
action, especially for time sensitive re-exports?

    Question 14. Going forward, is the Service reviewing its protocols 
for suspending vital research related permits to allow for stakeholder 
input and more narrowly tailored approaches that do not drive American 
biotech into the arms of our Chinese competitors?

    Question 15. In 2019, the Service revised its approach to the 
application of the ESA section 9 prohibitions to threatened species. 
Specifically, to be consistent with NMFS, FWS rescinded its ``blanket 
4(d) rule'' and applied the prohibitions on a species-by-species basis. 
This allows prohibitions to be applied as warranted and, in a manner, 
tailored to the conservation needs of each threatened species. In a 
final rule published this year, the Service reversed this decision and 
returned to its pre-2019 manner of implementation. Can you explain how 
this promotes consistent implementation of the ESA across agencies?

    Question 16. Earlier this year, the Services finalized three 
rulemakings related to the implementation of the ESA. The finalized 
Section 7 consultation regulation incorporates new potential 
requirements for developing the Reasonable and Prudent Measures (RPMs) 
necessary for an action agency or entity seeking a Federal permit to 
employ in order to minimize the impacts of incidental take. In this 
final rule, the Services can consider and include measures in an RPM 
that offset any remaining impacts of incidental take that cannot be 
avoided. These measures to offset impacts can be required inside or 
outside the action area. These are significant changes, and the Section 
7 Consultation handbook needs to be updated in order for action 
agencies and permit seekers to understand how this new process works. 
When will the handbook be updated, and will that process include public 
notice and comment so that the regulated community--and your fellow 
Federal agencies--can provide input on the practical impacts?

    Question 17. There is a lot of discussion of mitigation in the new 
ESA implementation rules. How many species ``mitigation banks'' are 
there in the country? Are there banks for all listed species? Can you 
explain what an ``in lieu fee'' mitigation offset is? How are any of 
these kinds of offsets reviewed and approved by the Service?

    Question 18. The new ESA Section 7 consultation rule just went into 
effect, and the Service has said that all consultations not yet 
completed will have to comply with them. How many ongoing consultations 
will now be delayed or have to be redone because of the new rules?

    Question 19. In a departure from their long-standing 
interpretation, the final rule allows the Services to require 
minimization and mitigation measures as reasonable and prudent measures 
when authorizing incidental take of species. The relevant statutory 
authorization (ESA Section 7(b)(4)(C)(ii)) only allows the Services to 
``minimize'' the impact of incidental take. The Services have never 
interpreted this provision as allowing for mitigation of take. What is 
the statutory legal authority that allows the Services to now impose 
``mitigation,'' including compensatory mitigation that would fully 
offset all potential impacts or require restoration/protection of 
habitat, when it is not clearly authorized by the ESA?

    Question 20. The final rule deletes the regulatory provisions at 50 
CFR 402.17. These were added in 2019 to establish when an activity is 
reasonably certain to occur and what consequences are caused by a 
proposed action for purposes of determining the effects of an action 
for consultation. The Services recognize that these criteria are 
relevant and applicable considerations. Why are the Services removing 
them from the regulations?

    Question 21. The ESA Consultation Handbook that the Services rely 
on for guidance was last published in 1998. The Services state that 
they are planning to update the Handbook to provide additional guidance 
on the ESA section 7 process. What is the timing for the new Handbook 
and what public review and comment process will be provided?

    Question 22. Can you please explain how the new ESA Section 4 
regulations comply with the Supreme Court's decision in Weyerhaeuser v 
US FWS?

    Question 23. In the 2024 final rule, the Services removed the more 
robust and detailed procedures for the designation of unoccupied areas 
as critical habitat that had been implemented in 2019. That 2019 final 
rule provided important standards detailing when property could be 
designated as critical habitat because it is essential to the 
conservation of species that do not currently occur on those lands or 
waters. How do the Services intend to designate unoccupied critical 
habitat going forward given their prior difficulties applying the 
relevant ESA statutory criteria and when there is no agreed upon 
regulatory definition of what is ``habitat'' for a species?

    Question 24. The courts have said that it is the five criteria in 
ESA Section 4(a)(1) that dictate the status of the species and whether 
it should be listed, delisted, or downlisted. The courts have also said 
that recovery plans and recovery criteria are not binding and do not 
have to be satisfied before a species is delisted. The final rule adds 
a ``recovery'' component to delisting/downlisting considerations. Can 
you explain how the Services intend to apply this new standard given 
that it seems contrary to the statute and case law?

             Questions Submitted by Representative Newhouse

    Question 1. Please provide an exact dollar amount that is requested 
in the FY25 budget for grizzly bear introduction.

    Question 2. Please provide a timeline, including dates, for planned 
grizzly bear introduction into the North Cascades Ecosystem.

    Question 3. Please provide a detailed explanation for the increase 
in administrative fees for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program 
in Washington State.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Director Williams. I now recognize 
Administrator Spinrad for 5 minutes.

      STATEMENT  OF  THE  HON.  RICHARD  SPINRAD,   UNDER
        SECRETARY  OF  COMMERCE  FOR  OCEANS  AND  ATMOS-
        PHERE AND NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINIS-
        TRATION  ADMINISTRATOR,  DEPARTMENT  OF COMMERCE,
        WASHINGTON, DC

    Dr. Spinrad. Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, 
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to 
testify about NOAA's Fiscal Year 2025 budget. We really 
appreciate the continued support of Congress, the 
Administration, and our broad and diverse set of stakeholders.
    For Fiscal Year 2025, NOAA's budget request proposes $6.6 
billion in discretionary appropriations, an increase of $224 
million from the Fiscal Year 2024 enacted level. The Fiscal 
Year 2025 request will prioritize investments in critical 
operational and infrastructure activities that support NOAA's 
ability to carry out our mission across five thematic areas.
    First, NOAA will address the climate crisis and strengthen 
resilience. Specifically, NOAA will invest in increasing 
conservation and protection in an expanded sanctuary system by 
training the next generation of marine-protected area 
professionals and expanding technology use to support 
management priorities.
    Second, NOAA will continue to provide critical science and 
data to inform economic development. Notably, NOAA will 
continue to work closely with the Department of the Interior's 
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and others to maximize the 
benefits of offshore wind.
    Third, NOAA will invest in the next generation of 
environmental satellites in order to provide significant 
improvements in data and products to meet the security, safety, 
and prosperity needs of the nation. NOAA uses industry's 
standard acquisition procedures to ensure that we invest 
appropriately and effectively.
    Fourth, NOAA will integrate equity across the organization 
by improving knowledge-sharing capabilities and service 
delivery in tribal, rural, and urban communities.
    And finally, NOAA will continue to reduce the deferred 
maintenance and repair backlog across our facilities in order 
to maintain operations, address safety issues, and ensure 
mission capability.
    This Fiscal Year 2025 budget builds on investments from the 
Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. 
I am proud to share that as of the end of Fiscal Year 2023, 
NOAA has awarded a total of $1.1 billion in IRA and BIL grants 
and contracts. Demand for funding to prepare for and adapt to 
climate change is extraordinarily high. In fact, some of our 
programs have seen 28 times more demand, which equals about $16 
billion more than we have in available funding, demonstrating 
the strong need for these types of opportunities.
    Additionally, NOAA is continuing to invest in a few other 
notable areas. We are prioritizing funding for North Atlantic 
right whale conservation through $48 million in the Fiscal Year 
2025 request, which will build on resources provided in the 
Inflation Reduction Act. Human-caused mortality continues to 
threaten the survival of this species. Notably, since January 
of this year, there have been four confirmed right whale 
mortalities in U.S. waters attributable to vessel strikes and 
entanglement in fishing gear.
    We must do more to protect and recover this species, and 
that is why NOAA is working on the Vessel Strike Reduction Rule 
and investing in on-demand fishing gear and collision avoidance 
technologies. We remain hopeful and look forward to working 
closely with our partners on finding durable solutions.
    The Administration, the Department of Commerce, and NOAA 
are committed to combating Illegal, Unreported, and 
Unregulated, or IUU, fishing, seafood fraud, and forced labor. 
NOAA appreciates the increased funding in Fiscal Year 2023 for 
its Seafood Import Monitoring Program, or SIMP, and the Fiscal 
Year 2025 budget request maintains this level of support. We 
are hard at work reviewing SIMP to ensure it works as 
effectively and efficiently as possible.
    Since November of this past year, we have met with 15 
Federal agencies, reached out to more than 3,000 stakeholders, 
engaged with 20 NGOs and 100 businesses, and consulted with 10 
foreign nations to solicit feedback on ways to improve the 
program. We are committed to using every tool at our disposal 
to enhance efforts in the fight against IUU fishing and seafood 
fraud, and we look forward to working more with you and other 
leaders in Congress on this important issue.
    Lastly, we continue to invest in Pacific salmon 
conservation. The Fiscal Year 2025 budget request, a $10 
million increase for Mitchell Act hatchery programs. This 
funding will support hatchery salmon production to fulfill our 
recovery goals, as well as support tribal fisheries in the 
Columbia River.
    Overall, with this Fiscal Year 2025 budget request, NOAA 
will be well positioned to help support the communities we 
serve, particularly those most vulnerable to climate change and 
its impacts. I look forward to working closely with you on each 
of these initiatives and to discussing NOAA's mission more with 
you today. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Dr. Spinrad follows:]
    
   Prepared Statement of Dr. Richard W. Spinrad, Under Secretary of 
       Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator

    Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify about the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fiscal Year (FY) 
2025 budget. NOAA appreciates the continued support of Congress, the 
Administration, and our broad and diverse base of stakeholders.
    For FY 2025, NOAA's budget request proposes $6.6 billion in 
discretionary appropriations, an increase of $224.8 million from the FY 
2024 enacted level. The FY 2025 budget builds on investments from the 
Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) (P.L. 117-169) and Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law (BIL) (P.L. 117-58) for climate resilience, climate 
science, data and services, environmental observations, and fisheries 
and protected resources.

    The FY 2025 request will prioritize investments in the critical 
operational and infrastructure activities that support NOAA's ability 
to carry out its mission. These substantial investments, along with 
other targeted increases, reflect my priorities as Administrator, which 
are to:

  1.  Build on NOAA's long history of success, and meet the needs of 
            the future by expanding, diversifying, and enhancing 
            climate products and services for all Americans.

  2.  Ensure that NOAA builds economic opportunities in the new blue 
            economy and upholds our critical role of environmental 
            stewardship.

  3.  Integrate equity across NOAA by improving capabilities and 
            knowledge sharing, and honing product development and 
            service delivery in Tribal and underserved communities and 
            taking an aggressive and active role in diversifying the 
            Federal workforce, in a just, equitable, and inclusive 
            manner.

Invest in Critical Satellites

    NOAA satellites are critical for NOAA's mission, as well as the 
security, safety, and prosperity of the Nation. Data from these 
satellites provide essential support to all segments of the U.S. 
economy. In FY 2025, NOAA requests an additional $605.7 million for 
significant investments in NOAA's observational infrastructure, 
underscoring NOAA's commitment to making crucial, time-sensitive, and 
cost-effective investments to ensure that the Nation's next-generation 
satellite systems expand delivery of essential earth system 
observations to meet the evolving needs of the American public. The FY 
2025 budget will help NOAA better forecast weather events, issue 
accurate warnings, and observe environmental phenomena connected to 
climate change-related impacts and patterns, and deliver products, 
information, and climate services to inform decision makers.
    NOAA's current satellite constellation has proven its worth and 
will continue to do so into the 2030s. However, NOAA must concurrently 
invest in the next generation of environmental satellites with the 
needs of user communities in mind. FY 2025 funding for future 
geostationary, low earth orbit, and space weather observations will 
ensure critical data continuity from legacy systems, while providing 
significant improvements in data and products to meet the complex 
societal and environmental needs of the Nation. In FY 2025, NOAA will 
continue the development of the GeoXO satellite program, which will 
provide improved weather forecasting, real-time monitoring of air 
quality conditions, and improved ocean forecasting and fisheries 
management yielded from geostationary orbit observations.
    The value of NOAA's world-class data is enhanced by NOAA 
applications and accessibility for users. The FY 2025 budget supports 
much-needed improvements to NOAA's data infrastructure. For example, 
the request includes funding to transition NOAA data from on-premise 
systems to a cloud-based environment for data ingest, processing, 
dissemination, and archiving, which will expand the size and diversity 
of NOAA user communities and data applications.

Expand Climate Products and Services to Build Climate Resilience

    The FY 2025 budget in conjunction with investments in BIL and IRA 
and in collaboration with other Federal agencies will address the 
climate crisis and strengthen resilience. In FY 2025, NOAA requests an 
additional $155.5 million to contribute to implementing Executive Order 
(EO) 14008 on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad. 
Establishing an end-to-end value chain for climate and weather data and 
services starts with investing in observational infrastructure and 
culminates in delivering services to meet a diverse set of missions. 
Therefore, NOAA will support observational infrastructure, decision 
support tools, service delivery, and conservation.
    NOAA provides timely and actionable environmental observations on 
global, national, and regional scales from satellites, radar, surface 
systems, atmospheric greenhouse gas sampling stations, ocean buoys, 
uncrewed systems, aircraft, and ships. With the funding requested in FY 
2025, in addition to the funding provided through IRA, NOAA will 
finalize the acquisition of a second G-550 for its high-altitude jet 
program. Additionally, NOAA will invest in Days at Sea and Flight Hours 
to support critical mission priorities, and the NOAA Corps officers 
needed to safely and effectively operate ships and aircraft.
    NOAA's weather forecasts and climate projections and information 
must be reliably delivered to users to inform decision making. Forty 
percent of the U.S. population lives and works in coastal counties, 
making a disproportionate segment of our society and economy at 
increasing risk to hazards such as hurricanes and coastal inundation. 
The National Weather Service will provide more Impact-based Decision 
Support Services, and NOAA is expanding its service delivery with more 
products and services to more communities across the country. The 
foundation for expanded service delivery is the Advanced Weather 
Interactive Processing System (AWIPS) in the cloud. AWIPS in the cloud 
will allow for more products across NOAA to use this dissemination 
system and reach local offices across the country. As a result, AWIPS 
in the cloud will push out a greater amount of information to reach a 
larger number of communities to provide greater decision support 
services. Therefore, the FY 2025 request will transform AWIPS into a 
modern, extensible cloud-based framework.
    Planners and decision makers face challenges when seeking Federal 
data to support resilience-building efforts. In FY 2025, NOAA will 
enhance the accessibility and usability of Federal climate data through 
the Climate Resilience Information System and Climate Mapping for 
Resilience and Adaptation, a publicly accessible, interoperable 
architecture that makes it easy for people to find and use Federal 
agencies' decision-relevant data to support climate adaptation and 
mitigation planning. NOAA will support this enhancement and expansion 
to include information specific to additional environmental hazards, 
integrate stakeholder feedback, and improve the systems' functionality.
    NOAA will also invest in increasing conservation and protection in 
an expanded sanctuary system, which is an integral part of NOAA's 
contribution to implementation of the America the Beautiful initiative 
that includes the goal to conserve at least 30 percent of U.S. lands 
and waters by 2030. NOAA's FY 2025 request will enhance NOAA's 
sanctuary management capacity as new sanctuaries are designated. NOAA 
will work to identify gaps in marine protection, train the next 
generation of Marine Protected Area professionals, and expand 
technology use in sanctuaries to support management priorities.

Provide Science and Data to Inform Economic Development

    NOAA will continue to foster environmental stewardship and optimize 
advances in science and technology, with a particular focus on the New 
Blue Economy: supporting development framed around an information and 
knowledge-based approach to support fisheries, transportation, 
shipping, renewable energy, recreation, and livelihoods. In 2023, the 
Bureau of Economic Analysis, in partnership with NOAA, released the 
official Marine Economy statistics that the U.S. marine economy 
contributed about $432.4 billion, or 1.9 percent, to the Nation's gross 
domestic product, an increase from 1.7 percent, or $363.2 billion \1\ 
and supports 2.3 million jobs annually.\2\ In FY 2025, NOAA requests an 
additional $55.1 million in support of the expansion of offshore wind 
energy, salmon populations of the Columbia River basin and beyond, and 
improvements in our tsunami and space regulatory infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Bureau of Economic Analysis, Marine Economy Satellite Account, 
2021, https://www.bea.gov/news/2023/marine-economy-satellite-account-
2021 (accessed January 22, 2024)
    \2\ Bureau of Economic Analysis and NOAA, Marine Economy, https://
coast.noaa.gov/states/fast-facts/marine-economy.html (accessed January 
25, 2024)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NOAA is an important Federal collaborator in support of the 
Administration's goal to responsibly deploy 30 gigawatts (GW) of 
offshore wind energy by 2030. In FY 2025, NOAA will continue to work 
closely with the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy 
Management (BOEM), the lead Federal agency for offshore wind siting, 
leasing, and permitting, and others to maximize the benefits of 
offshore wind; minimize the effects of offshore energy projects on 
protected marine resources, fisheries, and important habitats; and 
mitigate impacts to NOAA assets, fisheries surveys, and other 
activities.
    NOAA will continue supporting the production of 42 million hatchery 
fish, which represents about 30 percent of the total hatchery salmon 
and steelhead released in the Columbia River Basin, as well as their 
associated monitoring programs. Salmon smolts from hatchery programs 
funded through the Mitchell Act translate into the harvest of about 
250,000 fish that add to commercial, recreational, and Tribal 
fisheries. Fish from the Columbia River Basin also reflect an important 
component of Canadian and Alaskan ocean fisheries. These funds will 
complement the $60 million in IRA funds for Mitchell Act hatchery 
deferred maintenance, repair, and modernization.
    To further address tsunamis' unpredictability and potentially 
disastrous consequences to life and property along vulnerable U.S. 
coastlines, NOAA will provide a common framework that supports the 
National Tsunami Warning Center, located in Alaska, and Pacific Tsunami 
Warning Center, located in Hawai'i. Funding will ensure continuity of 
operations by eliminating discontinuities within existing systems, and 
providing consistent guidance to all users, independent of location.
    NOAA will foster the conditions for the economic growth and 
technological advancement of the U.S. commercial space industry. This 
request will allow the Office of Space Commerce to develop and maintain 
a new online information system to enhance commercial space companies' 
experience obtaining regulatory approvals and facilitating streamlined 
Department of Commerce consultation with interagency partners to 
establish and maintain an inventory of non-governmental space 
operations. The information system will also provide a simple method to 
disseminate information regarding U.S. space activity regulation, 
standards, and best practices. NOAA will provide necessary staffing to 
implement Department of Commerce responsibilities under the U.S. Novel 
Space Activities Authorization and Supervision Framework (December 
2023) and legislative reforms proposed by the Biden Administration. The 
personnel will implement an expanded regulatory program beyond remote 
sensing for licensing and monitoring compliance of in-space activities. 
Providing necessary resources for the Office's expanded roles is 
critical to meeting U.S. international obligations, ensuring U.S. 
economic competitiveness in commercial space, and maintaining space 
sustainability.

Bolster Equity

    NOAA will continue to support Executive Order 13985 on Advancing 
Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the 
Federal Government and Executive Order 14091 on Further Advancing 
Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the 
Federal Government. NOAA will integrate equity across the organization 
by improving capabilities and knowledge sharing, and honing product 
development and service delivery in Tribal and underserved communities.

Update and Maintain Crucial Facilities

    Safe and modern facilities are vital to support NOAA's mission of 
science, service and stewardship. In FY 2025, NOAA requests an 
additional $26 million to reduce the deferred maintenance and repair 
(DM&R) backlog in order to maintain operations, address safety issues, 
and ensure mission capability. Funding will also support design needs 
for facilities such as science centers and laboratories which will 
support future new construction and renovation projects.

Summary

    NOAA is working hand-in-hand with Federal and non-Federal partners 
locally and sharing best practices globally. People know they can turn 
to NOAA for reliable climate and extreme weather information to help 
make informed decisions that help save lives and livelihoods. In FY 
2025, NOAA will invest in its world class satellite program; expand 
Federal climate products and services to improve climate resilience; 
foster environmental stewardship and economic development by optimizing 
advances in science and technology with a focus on the New Blue 
Economy; integrate equity across the organization and in our work; and 
support ongoing investments in NOAA's aircraft, ships, and facilities. 
NOAA will be well-positioned to help support the communities we serve, 
particularly those most vulnerable to climate change and its impacts. 
Through this budget, NOAA will support the whole-of-government effort 
to address the climate crisis, boost resilience, and promote economic 
growth.

                                 ______
                                 

 Questions Submitted for the Record to the Honorable Richard Spinrad, 
        Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere &
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Administrator

The Hon. Richard Spinrad did not submit responses to the Committee by 
the appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.

              Questions Submitted by Representative Bentz

    Question 1. At our hearing I asked you about the Lower Snake River 
Dams and you stated that ``it's our agency's view that we can identify 
what the impacts are on the salmon population. We don't express an 
opinion on whether the dams should go in or go out, and that authority 
actually resides with Congress.'' However, at a hearing of the House 
Committee on Energy and Commerce in January, the Assistant 
Administrator of the National Marine Fisheries Service, Janet Coit, 
stated that ``our report concludes that in order to give the best 
possible chance of restoring salmon, we would need to breach the Lower 
Snake River Dams, and that is to achieve the healthy and harvestable 
goal.''

    1a) Does this represent a change in policy at NOAA?

    1b) Can you state for the record whether NOAA believes that the 
Lower Snake River Dams should be removed?

    Question 2. On September 30, 2022, the National Marine Fisheries 
Service released a draft report, ``Rebuilding Interior Columbia Basin 
Salmon and Steelhead.'' \1\ The Report seemed to represent a shift in 
how NOAA views the Federal Columbia River Power System and the Lower 
Snake River Dams. For example, the 2020 Record of Decision for the 
Columbia River Power System stated operation of the dams with 
mitigation and conservation measures ``will not jeopardize listed 
species or adversely modify or destroy critical habitat.'' \2\ However, 
the 2022 Rebuilding Report found that ``for Snake River stocks, the 
centerpiece action is restoring the lower Snake River via dam 
breaching.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/s3//2022-09/rebuilding-interior-
columbia-basin-salmon-steelhead.pdf
    \2\ Record of Decision. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-
2020-10-08/pdf/2020-22147.pdf
    \3\ Rebuilding Report. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/s3//2022-09/
rebuilding-interior-columbia-basin-salmon-steelhead.pdf

    2a) Can you explain what changed NOAA's shift in thinking over the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
course of 2 years?

    2b) What studies or experts did NOAA consult with in releasing the 
2022 Rebuilding Report?

    Question 3. In September 2023 the White House published the 
Memorandum on Restoring Healthy and Abundant Salmon, Steelhead, and 
Other Native Fish Populations in the Columbia River Basin. Among other 
things, the memo directed ``all agencies with applicable authorities 
and responsibilities'' to provide the Office of Management and Budget 
``an assessment of the agency's programs that can advance the policy 
established in section 1 of this memorandum.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Healthy and Abundant Memo. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-
room/presidential-actions/2023/09/27/memorandum-on-restoring-healthy-
and-abundant-salmon-steelhead-and-other-native-fish-populations-in-the-
columhia-river-basin/#::text=In%20recognition%20of%20these%20 
priorities.abundant%20salmon%2C%20steelhead%2C%20and%20other

    3a) What authorities or programs did NOAA provide to the Office of 
Management and Budget to carry out the policy established in this 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
memorandum?

    Question 4. In contrast with the 2022 Rebuilding Report, the 2020 
Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision were heralded by 
Senator Patty Murray and Governor Jay Inslee as being ``developed over 
four years costing $50 million and involved technical experts, 
scientific models, the input of thousands of individuals via public 
comment and meetings, and detailed economic analyses.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/
LSRD%20Benefit%20Replacement%20 Final%20Report_August%202022.pdf

    4a) Is it fair to say that the process to develop the 2020 ROD and 
EIS was a more thorough and public process than the one that led to the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2022 Rebuilding Report?

    Question 5. Leading up to and after this U.S. Government agreement 
was announced in late 2023, a diverse group of regional stakeholders 
and Members of Congress raised a number of concerns about a NOAA report 
entitled, ``Rebuilding Interior Columbia Basin Salmon and Steelhead,'' 
which was used as a basis for the U.S. Government commitments and 
actions. That report was out of character for NOAA Fisheries and not 
consistent with the agency's historical practices.

    5a) What are NOAA's specific plans to address this recent report 
that stands in contrast to decades of analysis and reports that draw 
vastly different conclusions?

    Question 6. In June 2022 the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 
released Guidelines for Mitigating Impacts to Commercial and 
Recreational Fisheries on the Outer Continental Shelf.\6\ In comments 
on these draft guidelines, the New England, Mid-Atlantic, and South 
Atlantic Fishery Management Councils all stated their belief that the 
offshore wind industry ``should be required to monitor changes in 
composition and abundance of aquatic species, habitats, and ecosystems 
at the project and regional scales.'' \7\ They also stated that 
monitoring efforts should include ``potential impacts to the fishery, 
the affected community, and to habitats upon which managed fish species 
depend.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/renewable-
energy/DRAFT%20Fisheries %20Mitigation%20Guidance%2006232022_0.pdf
    \7\ https://www.regulations.gov/comment/BOEM-2022-0033-0045
    \8\ Id.

    6a) Do you agree that the offshore wind industry should work 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
proactively with fisheries on these sorts of efforts?

    Question 7. In their comments, the Councils also raised concerns 
with how state and Federal agencies, the offshore wind industry, and 
the fishing industry work to develop guidelines for socioeconomic 
impacts. They said that limitations on data will make it difficult to 
``fully assess socioeconomic impacts for all impacted individuals,'' 
including captains, crews, and anglers, along with support industries 
related to processing, packing, and bait and tackle shops.

    7a) What sort of work does NOAA intend to do to help assist with 
these efforts?

    Question 8. NOAA states in its FY 2025 Budget Request that it will 
continue its work with BOEM on offshore wind and will ``minimize the 
effects of offshore energy projects on protected marine resources, 
fisheries, and important habitats.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Pg. 10. https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2024-04/
NOAA_Blue_Book_FY25_Budget_ Summary.pdf

    8a) What specific steps or actions has NOAA taken to work with 
fishing communities across the United States as offshore wind energy 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
projects have advanced?

    Question 9. A puzzling aspect of this budget request is its 
apparent focus on offshore wind while seeking reductions in areas like 
fisheries management and data collection, along with zeroing out the 
collaborative research program.

    9a) At a time where the seafood sector in the United States faces 
so many challenges, what message does cutting funding for these 
important programs send to the United States' fishing sector?

    Question 10. Administrator Spinrad, subsea cables are critical 
telecommunications infrastructure that enable our global connectivity 
and are integral to our national and economic security. In the proposed 
Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary off the coast of California, 
there are existing and planned subsea cables that should be 
accommodated without additional regulatory and permitting requirements.

    10a) Does NOAA have a plan for subsea cables within the sanctuary?

    10b) Can you ensure that any Special Use Permit (SUP) or 
requirements imposed on these cables will align with the existing 
regulatory and permitting requirements? Compliance with the robust 
existing requirements should be more than adequate for qualifying for a 
SUP.

    Question 11. All eight Regional Fishery Management Councils 
supported the removal of the commercial fishing bans from all marine 
national monument designations, stating that they ``hinder the 
councils' ability to sustainably manage fisheries throughout their 
range, and they restrict the councils and the National Marine Fisheries 
Service from acquiring invaluable knowledge about the stocks and the 
marine ecosystem made available through catch-and-effort and observer 
data.''

    11a) Do you disagree with all eight councils that commercial 
fishing bans in the monuments hinder their ability to perform their 
statutory duties under the Magnuson-Stevens Act?

    Question 12. All eight Regional Fishery Management Councils stated 
publicly that ``there is no peer-reviewed literature that demonstrates 
conservation benefit of the monument fishing restrictions to the highly 
migratory stocks that are targeted.''

    12a) What peer-reviewed data did your office assess before 
determining that a commercial fishing ban should be reimposed?

    12b) To what peer review data did you have access that the councils 
overlooked in making their determination?

    Question 13. In 2023, the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service 
released its National Seafood Strategy which, among other things, 
identifies as its Number One objective to: maximize fishing 
opportunities and sustainable seafood production while ensuring the 
sustainability of fisheries through effective and efficient management.

    13a) How does closing all U.S. waters around the U.S. Pacific 
Remote Island Area (PRIA), which historically have been important to 
the U.S. purse seine fleet and the Hawaii longline fleet, and 
displacing these fleets to fish on the high seas among foreign 
subsidized vessels, support NOAA's National Seafood Strategy?

    13b) How does closing U.S. waters to commercial fishing in the 
Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, which 
historically have been important to the U.S. swordfish and tuna 
longline fleet, support NOAA's National Seafood Strategy?

            Questions Submitted by Representative Radewagen

    Question 1. On February 20 during a meeting at the Marriot hotel 
with Governor Lemanu and Congresswoman Radewagen, Assistant Secretary 
Bavishi agreed there was an ``unusual process here'' as to the rapidity 
of this PRIMNM/Sanctuary designation process being conducted; do you 
agree with the Assistant Secretary's observation that this PRIMNM 
Sanctuary designation has been an ``unusual process here''?

    Question 2. Members of The Pacific Remote Islands Coalition stated 
in meetings March 7 with my Congressional staff that their clear goal 
is to kill all purse seine fishing and shutdown the cannery in American 
Samoa in pushing for the PRIMNM/Sanctuary designation they have been 
lead sponsor for, do you agree with the Pacific Remote Islands 
Coalitions sponsors goals to shut down our cannery in American Samoa?

    Question 3. The CEQ, under the Executive Office of the President is 
the policy agency for environmental impact statements which drive most 
decisions made by the Executive branch. I understand the 2nd draft EIS 
for the PRI Sanctuary has been written and is being reviewed by NMFS 
and other agencies. When will the draft be made public and does it 
include options for commercial fishing?

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman

    Question 1. Earlier this year, the Services finalized three 
rulemakings related to the implementation of the ESA. The finalized 
Section 7 consultation regulation incorporates new potential 
requirements for developing the Reasonable and Prudent Measures (RPMs) 
necessary for an action agency or entity seeking a Federal permit to 
employ in order to minimize the impacts of incidental take. In this 
final rule, the Services can consider and include measures in an RPM 
that offset any remaining impacts of incidental take that cannot be 
avoided. These measures to offset impacts can be required inside or 
outside the action area. These are significant changes, and the Section 
7 Consultation handbook needs to be updated in order for action 
agencies and permit seekers to understand how this new process works. 
When will the handbook be updated, and will that process include public 
notice and comment so that the regulated community--and your fellow 
Federal agencies--can provide input on the practical impacts?

    Question 2. There is a lot of discussion of mitigation in the new 
ESA implementation rules. How many species ``mitigation banks'' are 
there in the country? Are there banks for all listed species? Can you 
explain what an ``in lieu fee'' mitigation offset is? How are any of 
these kinds of offsets reviewed and approved by the Service?

    Question 3. The new ESA Section 7 consultation rule just went into 
effect, and the Service has said that all consultations not yet 
completed will have to comply with them. How many ongoing consultations 
will now be delayed or have to be redone because of the new rules?

    Question 4. In a departure from their long-standing interpretation, 
the final rule allows the Services to require minimization and 
mitigation measures as reasonable and prudent measures when authorizing 
incidental take of species. The relevant statutory authorization (ESA 
Section 7(b)(4)(C)(ii)) only allows the Services to ``minimize'' the 
impact of incidental take. The Services have never interpreted this 
provision as allowing for mitigation of take. What is the statutory 
legal authority that allows the Services to now impose ``mitigation,'' 
including compensatory mitigation that would fully offset all potential 
impacts or require restoration/protection of habitat, when it is not 
clearly authorized by the ESA?

    Question 5. The final rule deletes the regulatory provisions at 50 
CFR 402.17. These were added in 2019 to establish when an activity is 
reasonably certain to occur and what consequences are caused by a 
proposed action for purposes of determining the effects of an action 
for consultation. The Services recognize that these criteria are 
relevant and applicable considerations. Why are the Services removing 
them from the regulations?

    Question 6. The ESA Consultation Handbook that the Services rely on 
for guidance was last published in 1998. The Services state that they 
are planning to update the Handbook to provide additional guidance on 
the ESA section 7 process. What is the timing for the new Handbook and 
what public review and comment process will be provided?

    Question 7. Can you please explain how the new ESA Section 4 
regulations comply with the Supreme Court's decision in Weyerhaeuser v 
US FWS?

    Question 8. In the 2024 final rule, the Services removed the more 
robust and detailed procedures for the designation of unoccupied areas 
as critical habitat that had been implemented in 2019. That 2019 final 
rule provided important standards detailing when property could be 
designated as critical habitat because it is essential to the 
conservation of species that do not currently occur on those lands or 
waters. How do the Services intend to designate unoccupied critical 
habitat going forward given their prior difficulties applying the 
relevant ESA statutory criteria and when there is no agreed upon 
regulatory definition of what is ``habitat'' for a species?

    Question 9. The courts have said that it is the five criteria in 
ESA Section 4(a)(l) that dictate the status of the species and whether 
it should be listed, delisted, or downlisted. The courts have also said 
that recovery plans and recovery criteria are not binding and do not 
have to be satisfied before a species is delisted. The final rule adds 
a ``recovery'' component to delisting/downlisting considerations. Can 
you explain how the Services intend to apply this new standard given 
that it seems contrary to the statute and case law?

    Question 10. The Department of the Interior (DOI) requires that 
lessees and owners of operating rights decommission their facilities, 
pipelines and other equipment, in accordance with the governing DOI 
regulations and lease conditions. DOI has a robust review and approval 
process in place for the decommissioning of offshore platforms and 
facilities and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement 
(BSEE) published its Record of Decision (ROD) in December 2023 to kick 
off this robust process for the first ever decommissioning of offshore 
platforms in the Pacific Ocean. At the same time, NOAA has proposed the 
Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary in the Pacific Ocean along 
the south-Central California coastline, which includes the same region 
of the Pacific where some of these platforms are located offshore. 
While the proposal allows for the continued production of oil and gas 
in the Sanctuary, it does not allow for the decommissioning of oil and 
gas platforms and facilities. Given the robust permitting process that 
DOI is already undertaking to decommission these platforms and 
facilities in the Pacific, does it make sense to create an additional 
NOAA permitting process which could further delay or hinder the ability 
for companies to fulfill their obligation with DOI to decommission in 
the Pacific? Has NOAA considered making the decommissioning of oil and 
gas platforms and facilities an allowed activfry in the Chumash 
Heritage National Marine Sanctuary once it's finalized?

            Questions Submitted by Representative D'Esposito

    Question 1. Mr. Spinrad, could you briefly explain NOAA's current 
efforts regarding surveying and mapping of coastal and Federal 
waterways?

    Question 2. Is there a need for NOAA to work with the private 
sector to deploy advanced technologies and more effectively conduct 
these activities?

    Question 3. Within NOAA's Budget Estimates report for FY25 and its 
justification of program and performance it states, ``Complete and up-
to-date hydrographic data is central to developing accurate nautical 
charts and ensuring the safety of life at sea, and promoting efficient 
maritime commerce.''

    Question 4. Do you believe this information is readily available 
for commercial anglers, recreational fishers, boaters, maritime 
vessels, and others who enjoy our coastal waters?

    Question 5. My colleague Representative Mike Levin and I introduced 
the MAPOceans Act, which would provide for the standardization, 
publication, and accessibility of data for Federal waterway regulations 
and fishing restrictions along our coasts. This bill would require the 
Secretary of Commerce and relevant agencies, such as NOAA to partner 
with non-Federal and third-party providers, including the private 
sector to carry out this act. Do you agree that standardizing such 
information and making it publicly accessible would be beneficial for 
coastal economies and the multiple users of our coastal and Federal 
waterways?

              Questions Submitted by Representative Hoyle

    Question 1. The Fiscal Year 2025 (FY25) budget proposes significant 
cuts for the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS), which would have 
severe consequences for my district. I appreciate that developing the 
President's Budget requires trade-offs, especially in light of the 
Fiscal Responsibility Act's requirements. However, I am concerned about 
potential ripple effects of the proposed budget cuts.

    1a) How do you plan to prioritize remaining funds to ensure that 
critical functions of IOOS are maintained, and what criteria will guide 
these decisions?

    1b) How would the proposed cuts impact both programmatic core 
funding as well as Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation 
Reduction Act funding?

    1c) Can you outline the potential direct and indirect impacts of 
the proposed cuts to programs, communities, or international 
partnerships that rely on the data and infrastructure supported by 
IOOS?

    Question 2. It is my understanding that there have been ongoing 
issues with new business and awards systems (BAS and eRA Commons) 
implemented by NOAA last fall which have made NOAA unable to send 
funding or handle proposals for Cooperative Institutes. For example, 
the Cooperative Institute for Marine Ecosystem and Resources at Oregon 
State University has received no funding since the switchover, cannot 
process proposals, and is barreling toward a funding cliff this fall. 
I'm very concerned about the potential impact on researchers in my 
district and, more broadly, damage to NOAA's partnerships across the 
country. What is NOAA doing to address this issue, and what are the 
expectations for getting it resolved?

             Questions Submitted by Representative Dingell

    Question 1. Dr. Spinrad, the President's budget only proposes $10 
million for the Integrated Ocean Observing System which is a 76 percent 
reduction from fiscal years 2023 and 2024. I'm concerned this cut would 
drastically affect the IOOS's ability to work with its regional 
partners like the Great Lakes Observing System to generate and deliver 
continuous data on our coastal waters, oceans, and Great Lakes. Dr. 
Spinrad, do you share these concerns, and can you elaborate on how you 
arrived at this funding level?

    Question 2. Great Lakes researchers heavily rely on their 
partnership and use of the NOAA research vessel the Laurentian to 
better understand our Great Lakes, but the vessel is currently 50 years 
old. Dr. Spinrad, given its age and how important the work this vessel 
does, are there any plans in place to replace it?

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. I now recognize Administrator 
Hairston for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF JOHN HAIRSTON, ADMINISTRATOR AND CEO,
       BONNEVILLE POWER  ADMINISTRATION,  DEPARTMENT OF
       ENERGY, PORTLAND, OREGON

    Mr. Hairston. Good afternoon, Chairman Bentz and members of 
the Subcommittee. My name is John Hairston. I am the 
Administrator and CEO of the Bonneville Power Administration, 
based in Portland, Oregon.
    The Bonneville markets wholesale power from 31 Federal dams 
in the Pacific Northwest and operates over 15,000 miles of 
high-voltage transmission lines, which are the backbone of the 
region's transmission grid.
    I ask that my written testimony be submitted for the 
record, and I will briefly touch on key initiatives and 
challenges.
    First, I want to emphasize that Bonneville is in sound 
financial condition. In the last Fiscal Year, Bonneville 
excelled in difficult market and operational conditions. The 
2023 water year was the 13th driest on record, requiring 
Bonneville to make significant power purchases, which drove up 
our expenses. Our power services organization combined 
strategic forecasting, planning, and marketing approaches to 
partially offset those high power purchase costs. Our 
transmission service business organization expertly managed the 
Federal grid to ensure reliability and maximize capacity and 
sales, which further offset increased costs.
    Demonstrating our sound financial condition, Bonneville 
made its annual payment to the United States Treasury for the 
40th consecutive year, on time and in full, a payment of just 
over $1 billion. And I am very pleased to report that in March, 
Bonneville achieved a significant milestone for our commitment 
to remain the region's low-cost power provider beyond 2028, 
when our current long-term contracts expire.
    Bonneville released its final provider of choice policy, 
laying out the foundation of our future long-term contracts. 
Bonneville will offer to execute new contracts with customers 
in late 2025, and power sale deliveries for those contracts 
will begin in October 2028. The provider of choice policy was 
developed over several years of close discussions in a public 
process with our customers and other interested parties. 
Bonneville is now in a 2-year period for its power and 
transmission rates, which run through October 2025. In the 
current rate period, our power and transmission rates are flat 
compared to the last rate period. Our ability to maintain these 
levels of rates reflect execution of our financial plan and 
disciplined cost management.
    Now, Bonneville is beginning a public review of our 
forecasted program costs for the next rate period, which will 
cover the next 3 years beginning in October 2025. This will 
coincide with the last 3 years of our current power sales 
contracts.
    Among other strategic priorities is Bonneville's engagement 
in developing Western electricity markets, as well as extensive 
collaboration across the Pacific Northwest and beyond for 
electric system reliability and evolving transmission needs. 
New markets present opportunities to enhance the delivery of 
reliable, affordable, and carbon-free hydropower to our 
customers. We are basing our evaluation of market opportunities 
on principles to determine if Bonneville's participation will 
be consistent with our statutory obligations and support our 
customers' needs and interests.
    In 2022, Bonneville joined the Western Energy Imbalance 
Market, operated by the California Independent System Operator. 
Now, we decided to join the real-time market with the 
confirmation that it is voluntary and that we could participate 
consistent with our statutory obligations. Building on that 
experience, Bonneville is participating now in the development 
of two alternative day-ahead initiatives, one that would be 
operated by the California Independent System Operator and the 
other by the Southwest Power Pool.
    We released a staff recommendation in April for public 
comment, which stated a preference for the option proposed by 
the Southwest Power Pool. The recommendation noted the 
importance of the Southwest Power Pool market's independent 
governance. We will continue to hold public discussions with 
regional parties for my consideration and final decision in 
late November.
    Due to growing power demands, the need to bolster 
reliability and integrating clean energy across the Pacific 
Northwest, Bonneville is engaged in several initiatives to meet 
regional transmission needs. In July 2023, Bonneville announced 
it was moving forward with proposals for more than $2 billion 
in transmission substation and line projects. Bonneville is 
also participating in a transmission planning initiative to 
draw together diverse participants from across the Western 
Interconnection. The initiative, called the Western 
Transmission Expansion Coalition, aims to develop transmission 
plans over a larger footprint and a longer time horizon 
compared to others.
    In January, Bonneville announced the adoption of reforms to 
our open access transmission tariff to more efficiently connect 
new large generators onto the Federal grid. Bonneville 
currently has over 400 requests, representing over 120 
gigawatts of potential new generation, making these reforms 
essential to the region's clean energy future.
    These initiatives and our continued sound financial 
performance represent the engagement and commitment of 
Bonneville employees, and I am proud to represent them here 
today.
    That concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman, and I would be 
happy to respond to questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hairston follows:]
    
Prepared Statement of John Hairston, Administrator and Chief Executive 
                Officer, Bonneville Power Administration

    Good afternoon, Chairman Bentz and members of the Subcommittee. My 
name is John Hairston and I am the Administrator and Chief Executive 
Officer of the Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville). I am 
pleased to be here today to discuss Bonneville's budget submission for 
Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 and to discuss Bonneville's current initiatives.

Role of the Bonneville Power Administration

    Bonneville is a Federal Power Marketing Administration 
headquartered in Portland, Oregon. It serves a 300,000 square mile area 
that includes Oregon, Washington, Idaho, western Montana, and parts of 
northern California, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming.
    Bonneville markets electric power, provides transmission, and 
supports development of energy conservation throughout the region. 
Bonneville markets the electric power produced from 31 Federal 
hydroelectric projects operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
(Corps) and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). Together, the 31 
Federal hydro projects produce a total of 8,593 average megawatts in an 
average water year. Bonneville also acquires non-Federal power, 
including the power from one nuclear power plant, the Columbia 
Generating Station, to meet the needs of its customer utilities.
    Bonneville maintains and operates over 15,000 circuit miles of 
transmission lines and associated facilities over which this electric 
power is delivered. Bonneville's system is a substantial majority of 
the Northwest's high-voltage electric grid. It is Bonneville's 
responsibility to plan for and fund the development, operations and 
maintenance of this system, while also preserving and enhancing 
physical security, cyber-security, and overall system resilience.
    Bonneville is fully self-financed, issues bonds directly to the 
U.S. Treasury, and receives no direct annual appropriations for 
operations. Bonneville's power rates and transmission rates are set to 
recover its costs. Bonneville is currently authorized by the U.S. 
Congress to have outstanding at any time up to $13.7 billion of U.S. 
Treasury bonds through fiscal year 2027. Beginning in fiscal year 2028, 
an additional $4 billion will become available to have outstanding for 
a total of $17.7 billion of borrowing authority.
    Bonneville also funds the protection, mitigation, and enhancement 
of fish and wildlife affected by the development and operation of the 
hydropower system as part of its efforts to preserve and balance the 
economic and environmental benefits of the Federal Columbia River Power 
System (FCRPS).

Financial Performance

    In the last fiscal year, Bonneville excelled in difficult market 
and operational conditions. Bonneville's accomplishments proved the 
value of resilience in navigating the variability and uncertainty of 
operating a hydro-based power system and an open-access transmission 
grid across a large geographic footprint. It was the 13th driest year 
on record, requiring Bonneville to make significant power purchases, 
driving up expenses. Strategic forecasting, planning, and marketing 
approaches, combined with actions to preserve liquidity, allowed Power 
Services to partially offset the power purchase costs. In addition, 
Transmission Services expertly managed the Federal grid to ensure 
reliability and maximize capacity, enabling increased sales. Despite 
the dry year, Bonneville exceeded its agency net revenue target of 
negative $332 million by $75 million.
    Both Power Services and Transmission Services ended the year above 
their thresholds for financial reserves, triggering their reserves 
distribution clauses (RDC). The RDC amounts of $285 million for Power 
and $130 million for Transmission will be used to reduce customer 
rates, reduce debt, support transmission system investment, and the 
Power RDC can be used to fund specific fish and wildlife investments.

Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Overview

    Bonneville is in sound financial condition. Its Fiscal Year 2025 
Budget proposes estimated accrued (self-financed) expenditures of 
$2,999 million for operating expenses, $55 million for projects funded 
in advance by customers and $1,093 million for capital investments. 
Bonneville funds its approximate $4.2 billion in annual cost of 
operations and investments primarily through power and transmission 
revenues and borrowing from the U.S. Treasury at market determined 
interest rates.

Debt Repayment and Credit Ratings

    Bonneville made its annual payment to the U.S. Treasury for the 
40th consecutive year, on time and in full, totaling $1.02 billion for 
FY 2023. This demonstrated Bonneville's ability to meet all of its 
financial commitments. Bonneville expects to make its 41st consecutive 
Bonneville payment to the U.S. Treasury, currently estimated at $915 
million, at the end of this fiscal year, on time and in full.
    Leading credit ratings agencies have taken note of Bonneville's 
solid financial footing. Fitch's rating for Bonneville-backed debt is 
AA, stable; Moody's is Aa1, negative; and S&P is AA-, stable. These 
ratings reflect that Bonneville's financial policies are working and 
that Bonneville is well-positioned to lead the region toward a 
prosperous clean energy future.

Financial Planning

    Bonneville adopted an updated Financial Plan in 2022, focusing on 
core objectives and metrics. These objectives include maintaining cost-
management discipline and execution of capital plans; maintaining 
financial resiliency through adequate reserves, leverage U.S. Treasury 
borrowing authority; and maintaining high investment-grade credit 
ratings. These objectives demonstrate Bonneville's commitment to 
deliver on its public responsibilities and to maintain its position as 
the region's leading power and transmission provider.

Bonneville's Strategic Direction:

    In January, Bonneville implemented its 2024-2028 Strategic Plan. 
The plan charts a path forward guided by six strategic goals: invest in 
people, enhance the value of products and services; sustain financial 
strength; mature asset management; preserve safe and reliable system 
operations; and modernize business systems and processes.

New Long-Term Power Sales Contracts:

    In March, Bonneville achieved a significant milestone for its 
commitment to remain the region's low-cost power provider beyond 2028 
when current long-term power sales contracts expire. Bonneville 
released its final Provider of Choice Policy and Record of Decision, 
laying out the foundation for future long-term contracts. The Policy 
was developed through a public process in close collaboration with 
customers and other interested parties. Bonneville will offer to 
execute Provider of Choice contracts with utilities in late 2025. Power 
deliveries under these contracts will begin October 1, 2028.
    At the heart of the Policy is Bonneville's decision to develop 
contracts based on a tiered rate construct, which seeks to protect the 
value of the existing Federal system from unbound acquisition costs, 
and insulate customers from costs associated with other customers' 
resource choices. The Policy maintains these key elements while 
proposing additional flexibilities and options to help meet customers' 
and Bonneville's evolving needs.
    While the release of the Provider of Choice Policy signifies an 
important milestone in the contract renewal process with Bonneville's 
preference utility customers, much work remains. Bonneville has begun a 
series of policy implementation and contract development workshops to 
develop details about the products and services outlined in the Policy.

Rates:

    To establish rates for FY 2024 and FY 2025, Bonneville concluded 
the BP-24 rate proceeding in July 2023 by releasing the Administrator's 
Final Record of Decision and Final Proposal. Rates went into effect on 
Oct. 1, 2023, and will be effective through Sept. 30, 2025. The final 
decision held wholesale power rates effectively flat for the two-year 
period. Transmission rates are also maintained at their previous 
levels.
    In December, Bonneville announced that it will adopt a three-year 
rate period for its next Power and Transmission rates process. This 
rate period will run from FY 2026 through FY 2028 and coincide with the 
expiration of Bonneville's current long-term power contracts on 
September 30, 2028. Bonneville decided to close out the contract period 
with a single three-year Power rate period and align the next 
Transmission rate period for that same duration. Maintaining common 
timing between Power and Transmission rate processes allows Bonneville 
to align its Integrated Program Review (IPR) to show total agency costs 
over that period. The common timing should also be more efficient with 
customer time for engaging in rate case work. Bonneville has begun 
workshops with customers and constituents to identify key issues for 
the upcoming rates process.
    Bonneville is initiating its IPR to discuss with customers and 
constituents program cost forecasts for the next rate period. 
Determining program cost forecasts will require important Bonneville 
decisions to balance cost-management objectives against the need to 
invest in areas that support the delivery of strategic goals.

Western Markets Engagement

    New markets present opportunities to enhance the delivery of 
reliable, affordable and carbon-free hydropower to Bonneville 
customers. Bonneville evaluates market engagement from principles based 
on determining if participation will be consistent with Bonneville's 
statutory obligations and support its customers' needs and interests. 
In 2022, Bonneville joined the Western Energy Imbalance Market (WEIM), 
the real-time energy market operated by the California Independent 
System Operator (CAISO). Prior to joining the WEIM, Bonneville 
participated with other regional representatives to develop specific, 
but limited, authorities for WEIM design and oversight by an 
independent Governing Body.
    Building on that experience, Bonneville is participating in the 
development of two day-ahead market initiatives underway in the West--
the CAISO's Extended Day-Ahead Market and Southwest Power Pool's (SPP) 
Markets Plus. In July 2023, Bonneville initiated a public process with 
customers and the public on its decision to participate in either 
market option.
    In April, Bonneville released its staff recommendation and 
preliminary legal assessment for day-ahead market participation. The 
staff recommendation is for Bonneville to pursue participation in a 
day-ahead market and they identified SPP's Markets Plus as the 
preferred option. The recommendation is based on the current design of 
both market alternatives and their governance features. Bonneville 
invited additional comment on its staff assessment of market 
opportunities and is continuing to host a series of public workshops. 
Bonneville plans to issue a draft policy in August and the 
Administrator's Record of Decision in November.

Transmission

    The demand for serving growing loads, bolstering reliability, and 
integrating clean energy across the Pacific Northwest is driving the 
need for transmission expansion to deliver energy from geographically 
dispersed resources to population centers where demand for electricity 
is expected to grow. In July 2023, Bonneville announced it is moving 
forward with proposals for more than $2 billion in multiple 
transmission substation and line projects to reinforce the regional 
grid and to respond to its customers' demands while supporting the 
region's clean energy goals.
    Bonneville is also participating in an initiative drawing together 
regional participants from across the West to develop an approach for 
regional and interregional transmission planning over a longer planning 
time horizon. This initiative has formed as the Western Transmission 
Expansion Coalition, or WestTEC, and is being facilitated by the 
Western Power Pool. Bonneville is contributing financial support and 
participating in the leadership and technical analysis of the 
initiative.
    In January, Bonneville announced its adoption of certain reforms to 
its open access tariff to more efficiently process generation 
interconnection requests to connect new large generators onto the 
Federal transmission grid. These tariff modifications were developed 
with customers and stakeholders through a collaborative process and 
resulted in a settled tariff case. This important step came at a 
critical time for the region where, currently, Bonneville's large 
generator interconnection queue contains over 400 requests representing 
over 120 gigawatts of potential new generation.
    With the adopted tariff reforms, Bonneville will implement a first-
ready, first-served cluster study approach to processing 
interconnection requests, replacing the previous first-come, first-
served serial study process. The new interconnection process included 
new readiness criteria and the ability to study requests as a group, or 
cluster, rather than individually in queue order. These improvements 
will allow Bonneville to offer a more transparent and streamlined 
process, and provide greater certainty regarding the cost and timing of 
interconnections.

Energy Efficiency

    For more than 40 years, Bonneville has catalyzed conservation as a 
resource the Pacific Northwest in the development of conservation as a 
resource to meet power load demands customers place on Bonneville. 
Conservation, or energy efficiency, is Bonneville's priority resource 
to address the growth in power load demands across the region. As of 
last year, Bonneville's cumulative energy efficiency savings totaled 
2,583 average megawatts since the passage of the Northwest Power Act in 
1980.

Fish and Wildlife

    The Federal Columbia and Snake River dams along with climate 
change, ocean conditions, habitat degradation, predation, harvest, and 
hatcheries have had adverse impacts on salmon, steelhead, and other 
native fish populations in the Basin. These fish have tremendous value 
to the region and to Tribal Nations in the Basin. As a result, 
Bonneville, the Corps, and Reclamation have made extensive 
modifications and operational changes to mitigate the impacts of the 
system's construction and continued operation on fish and wildlife. 
Since the 1980 Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act, 
Bonneville has invested billions of dollars in improved configuration 
and operation of the dams, as well as in offsite restoration efforts 
for the benefit of fish and wildlife sponsored by Tribes, states, and 
local communities. In the last year, Bonneville was a party to two 
agreements to address long-standing litigation over challenges to the 
Columbia River System Operations Environmental Impact Statement and 
associated Endangered Species Act consultations.
    Last September, Bonneville and other federal signatories entered 
into a memorandum of understanding and settlement agreement with the 
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, the Coeur d'Alene 
Tribe, and the Spokane Tribe of Indians related to the blocked area 
above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee dams. Bonneville agreed to provide 
$200 million over 20 years for these Tribes' second phase of studies to 
assess reintroduction of specific non-federally protected salmonid 
stocks above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee dams in the upper Columbia 
River Basin.
    Subsequently, the Resilient Columbia Basin Agreement of December 
14, 2023, was signed by the U.S. Government, including Bonneville, 
along with the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation; the 
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the 
Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon; the Nez 
Perce Tribe; the State of Oregon; and the State of Washington--
collectively referred to as the ``Six Sovereigns,''--and a coalition of 
environmental and fishing advocacy groups led by the National Wildlife 
Federation.

    Bonneville has already planned, through its fish and wildlife 
program, to add at least an additional $20 million in combined capital 
and expense funding in FY 2024 and FY 2025 for fish and wildlife 
efforts throughout the Columbia River Basin on top of its annual 
program funding and the September commitments to the upriver Columbia 
River Tribes. In the December 14, 2023, agreement, Bonneville's 
financial commitments include and are limited to:

     $200 million over 10 years in additional capital funding 
            will be available to be directly funded by Bonneville to 
            the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Lower Snake River 
            Compensation Plan hatchery modernization, upgrades, and 
            maintenance, as guided by the priorities of other fishery 
            managers including the Six Sovereigns.

     An additional $100 million in funding over 10 years for 
            projects that contribute to the restoration of salmon and 
            other native fish populations. To implement this 
            commitment, Bonneville will provide an annual $10 million 
            payment to the Six Sovereigns in a manner to be agreed 
            upon, to distribute to specific projects, as prioritized by 
            the Six Sovereigns.

Workforce Competitiveness

    This testimony has reviewed a number of accomplishments and 
initiatives that demonstrate Bonneville's industry-leading technical 
and policy capabilities. Bonneville has a highly talented and skilled 
workforce, as demonstrated by this high performance. Bonneville 
competes for talent within the electric power industry. Its employees 
are subject to the federal General Schedule and government 
classification standards.

Columbia River Treaty

    The Columbia River Treaty is an agreement between the United States 
and Canada, which provides a framework under which they jointly 
coordinate water operations for flood risk management and hydropower 
generation. In September 2024, the Treaty shifts to a less-defined 
approach to flood risk management. The Treaty went into effect in 1964 
and is an example of transboundary water resources cooperation.
    The United States and Canada are discussing options to improve the 
Columbia River Treaty regime to better reflect today's realities, and 
thereby benefit both countries. Bonneville is working with other 
affected Federal agencies to support the U.S. State Department in these 
negotiations with Canada to achieve a modernized Columbia River Treaty 
regime.

Willamette Valley System Power Deauthorization

    While the Federal hydroelectric dams of the Columbia and Snake 
Rivers are valuable clean energy assets for the Pacific Northwest, 
Bonneville is concerned by the sharply declining value of Federal 
hydroelectric generation from Oregon's Willamette Valley. The 
Willamette Valley System was authorized by Congress primarily for flood 
risk management, and the 11 dams in the system continue to provide 
considerable benefits to downstream communities by reducing their flood 
risk as well as supporting water supply and recreation. Eight of the 
dams have power generating capability and Bonneville pays approximately 
40 percent on average of the joint costs for those dams.
    Some of the Willamette dams were built without fish passage 
facilities, and the Corps is investigating structural measures and 
implementing operations to provide fish passage at the power-producing 
Willamette dams. In addition, in the draft Environmental Impact 
Statement for the Willamette Valley System, the Corps proposed 
indefinitely extending reservoir operations for fish passage that 
reduce power generation by more than a third of recent levels of 171 
average megawatts. These Willamette dams are among the highest cost 
projects in Bonneville's hydro portfolio, and the estimated cost of 
structural measures will add significantly to Bonneville's debt without 
increasing its revenue or assets. These potential increases in capital 
and associated repayment costs affect rates for Bonneville's power 
customers.
    In the FY 2020 Energy and Water Appropriations Act, the House 
Committee report directed the Corps, Reclamation, and Bonneville to 
report on methods to modernize allocation of project costs among 
authorized purposes to reflect current benefits. For FY 2021, the House 
Committee report directed the Corps and Bonneville to continue to work 
to resolve their approaches to cost reallocation and provide quarterly 
reports on their progress.
    The 2020 Water Resources Development Act directed the Corps to 
report within two years of passage on the impacts of deauthorizing the 
power purposes at the Cougar and Detroit/Big Cliff projects of the 
Willamette Valley System. The 2022 Water Resources Development Act 
directed the Corps to conduct disposition studies for the power purpose 
at the eight Willamette dams within 18 months of enactment.

Conclusion

    Bonneville continues to deliver tremendous value to the communities 
served by the Federal power system. Bonneville serves as a cornerstone 
for the economy of the Pacific Northwest by both meeting its statutory 
obligations and evolving to support the changing needs of its customers 
and the region. I am proud of the accomplishments of our people and 
their dedication to Bonneville's mission. This concludes my testimony, 
Mr. Chairman, and I will be happy to respond to the Subcommittee's 
questions.

                                 ______
                                 

Questions Submitted for the Record to John Hairston, Administrator and 
                  CEO, Bonneville Power Administration

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

              Questions Submitted by Representative Bentz

    Question 1. In mid-January, the Pacific Northwest region 
experienced an Arctic blast that led to extreme weather conditions--
inches of freezing rain and snow and sub-zero temperatures brought the 
entire region to a standstill. While many electric utilities 
experienced outages, the region itself never ran out of available 
power. This is largely due to the reliability and dispatchability of 
the Lower Snake River Dams. BPA indicated that the four Lower Snake 
River Dams played a major role keeping the lights on. BPA noted in its 
press release that ``The lower Snake River dams made major 
contributions to BPA's efforts to keep the lights on during the cold 
snap,'' finding that the four dams peaked at more than 1,000 aMW each 
day.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.bpa.gov/about/newsroom/news-articles/20240131-
federal-hydro-system-powers-region-through-arctic-blast

    1a) Can you talk about the importance of those four dams during 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
this intense period?

    Question 2. Administrator Hairston, the Pacific Northwest Utilities 
Conference Committee recently issued its 2024 Northwest Regional 
Forecast,\2\ which helps to track shifts in energy demand and potential 
resource changes to the power sector across the region. The Committee 
projected, among other things, that electricity demand will increase 
30% over the next 10 years.\3\ BPA will play a critical role in helping 
to meet these demands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ https://www.pnucc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024-PNUCC-Northwest-
Regional-Forecast-final.pdf
    \3\ Id.

    2a) Can you offer any thoughts on how BPA is positioned to help the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
region meet this increase in demand?

    Question 3. In your testimony in front of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee in January of this year, you talked about some of the 
challenges that salmon face due to BPA's operations, but you also noted 
that ``each of the Mainstem Columbia and Snake River dams now achieve 
96 to 99% survival rates.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\  https://dldth6e8-4htgma.cloudfront.nct/
01_30_24_ENG_Testimony_Hairston_36dl5ee6ee.pdf

    3a) Could you talk about how BPA has helped to improve salmon 
recovery and fish passage efforts, particularly along the Snake River 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dams?

    Question 4. Administrator Hairston, at our hearing Administrator 
Spinrad stated that ``We don't express an opinion on whether the dams 
should go in or go out, and that authority actually resides with 
Congress.'' However, at a hearing of the House Committee on Energy and 
Commerce in January, the Assistant Administrator of the National Marine 
Fisheries Service, Janet Coit, stated that ``our report concludes that 
in order to give the best possible chance of restoring salmon, we would 
need to breach the Lower Snake River Dams, and that is to achieve the 
healthy and harvestable goal.''

    4a) Are you at all concerned with the approach that NOAA and the 
Biden Administration have taken with respect to the Lower Snake River 
Dams?

    Question 5. There are key interests in the Northwest economy who 
say the U.S. Government has been virtually silent on how it is 
implementing the White House agreement and in fact critical dates 
identified by the U.S. Government have been missed.

    5a) Can BPA shed light on any efforts by the Administration to 
share with the people of the Northwest what the status is for these 
sweeping actions and commitments and where the implementation details 
and specific responsible party points of contact can be found?

    Question 6. Given that the announcement of the U.S. Government 
agreement and related elements were made in haste at the end of 2023 
and finalized in early 2024, reports had indicated at the time that BPA 
had not been able to fully analyze the operational impacts that could 
occur from changed river operations that the agreement committed to.

    6a) Where is BPA on that more robust analysis front and how does 
the analysis line up for a dry water year, which I understand the 
region is facing for the remainder of 2024?

    Question 7. To what extent is BPA receiving outreach from other 
sovereign parties--such as Tribes, states or other special 
jurisdictions--who are expressing interest in additional agreements 
that may cost BPA ratepayers funds similar to the $300 million or more 
in ``actions and commitments'' the U.S. Government and BPA recently 
signed on to?

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. I now recognize Administrator LeBeau 
for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF TRACEY LeBEAU, ADMINISTRATOR AND CEO,
      WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF 
      ENERGY, LAKEWOOD, COLORADO

    Ms. LeBeau. Thank you, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member 
Huffman, and members of the Committee. My name is Tracey 
LeBeau. I am an Administrator for the Western Area Power 
Administration (WAPA). I am pleased to be here with you today.
    WAPA is amongst the nation's largest transmission owners 
and providers, covering a footprint of more than 1.3 million 
square miles across 15 states in the West. We market hydropower 
from 57 Federal dams and deliver along our 17,000 miles of 
high-voltage transmission. Our core mission is to safely 
provide reliable, cost-based hydropower and transmission to our 
wholesale customers and the communities they serve.
    WAPA's nearly 2,000 dedicated employees and contractors 
tirelessly keep the lights on for over 40 million Americans, 
and together we work to ensure that electricity is available 
and affordable to those who rely on it for economic and for 
basic needs.
    Our recent strategic plan, Power Forward 2030, serves as a 
framework around our three organizational priorities to 
safeguard a sustainable energy future, to modernize our grid, 
and to invest in our employees. This framework is to guide us. 
We are well positioned to adapt to exciting and challenging 
years ahead, as both a critical source of stable, clean energy 
and a vital transmission backbone across the West.
    One challenge we continue to face is drought. Drought 
threatened WAPA's entire service territory for the first time 
in 2022. While conditions improved in the last year, drought 
remains what we consider a slow-moving natural disaster that 
will take years of consistent and significant snowpack to fully 
recover. In response, we have adjusted rates throughout our 
system to ensure reliability.
    Reduced hydropower generation means more customers must buy 
power in the open market, which has led to increased costs and 
constrained supply. Also, it has been negatively impacting 
WAPA's customers, many who have served the most economically 
vulnerable communities in the United States.
    WAPA's purchased power and wheeling authority is an 
important financial guardrail against drought, as it funds our 
purchasing replacement power. This program's budget this year 
has been adjusted to $688 million, down from $715 million last 
year, which we fully recover through customer rates. Thanks to 
your support of this program, we are able to mitigate the 
economic impacts to the communities we serve.
    WAPA continues to experience threats from extreme weather, 
which result in damage to our lines and facilities. These 
events are worsened by continuing supply chain challenges. Our 
supply chain risk management program is integral to our 
cybersecurity and our procurement strategies. We are also 
exploring with industries ideas like creating reserves for 
large transformers to establish some scale for new projects, 
and possibly guard against emergencies.
    The core of WAPA's mission is to provide safe and reliable 
electricity. As such, we maintain, rebuild, and upgrade our 
existing infrastructure, and we also build new transmission. 
One current project in Arizona, the Vail to Tortolita Project, 
demonstrates how to improve reliability without raising rates, 
and is a model for future large-scale public-private 
partnerships. We have also partnered with the U.S. military, 
and we had some opportunities, particularly with the Beale Air 
Force Base in Arizona, to help them with reliability for their 
essential missions.
    Our transmission infrastructure program continues to manage 
and invest WAPA's $3.25 billion borrowing authority to finance 
the exigent need for new transmission in the West. TIP is 
supporting a number of projects, one of which being a recently 
announced public-private partnership with grid lines to expand 
a portion of our Mead substation outside of Hoover, which is a 
critical transmission and energy market hub in the West.
    Energy markets are supporting how we operate, making sure 
that we reliably serve expanding loads, meet clean energy 
goals, and plan and build new lines. WAPA was the first PMA to 
fully join a Regional Transmission Organization, or RTO, in 
2015. It has been very successful, and today we are involved in 
every major energy market initiative throughout the Western 
Interconnection.
    Physical security is an increasing concern to the grid. We 
continue to harden our system from physical and cyber risks. 
Although there is no specific physical threat to WAPA at this 
time, we have a concerning uptick in security incidents, and we 
continue to be hyper vigilant, reminding everybody, if they see 
something, to say something, and have increased our security 
posture. As the energy landscapes evolve, WAPA stands ready to 
address the challenges and seize opportunities for the benefit 
of our nearly 700 wholesale customers across the West, as well 
as the nation.
    Thank you again for allowing me to testify today, and I 
will be available to answer any of your questions you might 
have.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. LeBeau follows:]
    
Prepared Statement of Tracey LeBeau, Administrator, Western Area Power 
               Administration, U.S. Department of Energy

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is 
Tracey LeBeau, and as the Administrator of the Western Area Power 
Administration (WAPA), I am honored to present our annual operations 
review and discuss our budget request for Fiscal Year 2025. Our mission 
at WAPA is as significant as it is complex--we are tasked with 
delivering cost-effective, reliable hydropower across vast regions of 
the Western United States. We maintain extensive transmission systems, 
adapt to the evolving energy landscape, and ensure the sustainability 
of our operations thanks to a truly outstanding workforce.
    WAPA's transmission network spans 1.3 million square miles to serve 
a diverse population, including nearly 700 wholesale customers which 
are often in rural communities, including cities and municipalities, 
rural electric cooperatives, irrigation districts, military 
installations, and Tribal governments and utilities. We manage power 
from 57 federal dams operated by the Bureau of Reclamation 
(Reclamation), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the International 
Boundary and Water Commission. And we own, operate, and maintain one of 
the nation's largest transmission systems, with over 17,000 circuit 
miles of high voltage transmission and more than 300 bulk electric 
substations across 15 states. This immense responsibility compels us to 
continuously seek ways to enhance our operational efficiencies and 
ensure the reliability of our services, especially in the face of 
escalating environmental and energy markets challenges.
    WAPA's FY 2025 budget proposal is designed to ensure the continued 
reliability and security of the federal power and transmission system 
while addressing the financial and operational challenges ahead. This 
budget not only supports WAPA's operational needs but also contributes 
to broader federal energy goals by maintaining critical energy 
infrastructure across the Western United States.
    Today, I will outline the advancements and strategic initiatives we 
have undertaken in the past year, discuss the challenges we face due to 
changing hydrological conditions and aging infrastructure, and detail 
our financial strategies and requirements to continue fulfilling our 
mission effectively.

POWER AND TRANSMISSION

    At WAPA, we administer a range of rate structures across our 
multiple different projects to facilitate the efficient delivery of 
federal hydroelectric power. Established to recover annual operations 
and maintenance costs as well as the original investment, plus 
interest, our preference and power customers shoulder these financial 
responsibilities, and we value their input and support as we manage 
costs together. Repaying the Treasury for these investments, WAPA has 
returned $1.5 billion to Treasury in the last 5 years.

    There are a number of notable rate matters that deserve 
highlighting this year:

    Detailed Rate Structures and Adjustments: The Desert Southwest 
Region's (DSW) Boulder Canyon Project (BCP) features a unique rate 
structure with a base fee proportionally distributed among contractors 
based on power allocation. For Fiscal Year 2024, the base charge is set 
at $74.3 million, marking an 11.3% increase due to heightened Bureau of 
Reclamation replacement costs and WAPA's operational enhancements.
    This year WAPA introduced and successfully implemented a One 
Transmission Rate (OTR) of $20.76 per kW-year in DSW starting January 
1, 2024, for customers including the Central Arizona Project (CAP). The 
OTR unified the rates for several projects in DSW to a single rate, 
reducing administrative overhead and supporting WAPA's objectives to 
enhance operational flexibility and ensure fair distribution of 
transmission service costs. This OTR was a strategic and timely move 
towards a standardized rate structure maintaining project rate 
integrity, eliminating rate pancaking and fostering regional 
consistency. This major change represents a positive example of WAPA's 
collaboration with customers to drive efficiencies.
    The Sierra Nevada Region's (SNR) Central Valley Project (CVP) has 
benefited from improved hydrological conditions, leading to increased 
projected generation for FY 2024. Despite hydropower fluctuations, 
WAPA's Power Revenue Requirement (PRR) system protects customers from 
market price spikes, ensuring stable and predictable pricing. This 
fiscal year, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) 
Restoration Fund charge assessed to commercial power is $8 million, the 
lowest it's been in over 15 years (the highest was $35.9M in FY 2017). 
In FY 2023, the CVP derived rate was $30.74 per megawatt hour (MWh) in 
comparison to the market cost at $57.28 per MWh. SNR rates were 46 
percent below the market which is a significant benefit to the CVP 
power customers in SNR's service territory.

    Project-Specific Challenges and Responses: In the DSW Region's 
Pacific Northwest-Pacific Southwest Intertie Project (Intertie), WAPA 
maintained stable rates until the OTR was implemented. The transmission 
service rate for the Intertie remained unchanged at $19.32 per 
kilowatt-year (kW-year) to maintain cost predictability for 
stakeholders.
    While the OTR consolidation simplifies regulatory interactions and 
creates a unified rate structure, some stakeholders have raised 
concerns about disproportionate cost distribution. WAPA is addressing 
these concerns through regulatory channels to ensure that the new rate 
structure meets federal standards and supports the needs of the broader 
region.

    Vail-Tortolita and Southline Transmission projects: WAPA and Tuscon 
Electric Power (TEP) have decided to rebuild the 60-mile portion of 
WAPA's Parker Davis Project transmission system, the Vail-Tortolita 
Project, using advanced/high-temperature low sag conductors. Aluminum 
conductor, steel supported (ACSS) technology uses soft (annealed) 
aluminum, making it resistant to breaking even at higher temperatures. 
Using this conductor will be beneficial, especially in congested urban 
areas with limited infrastructure. WAPA and Southline will work 
together on rebuilding an adjacent 60-mile segment of the same line.

    Drought: Drought impacts on generation and transmission continue to 
be a priority across WAPA's footprint. While hydrology improved over 
the last two years, those improvements fall short of normal levels with 
respect to energy deliveries and the impact drought is having on 
hundreds of WAPA's customers who must secure replacement power due to 
lost hydropower in the short term. Customers are also planning for 
long-term power replacement needs. Similar to the support WAPA provides 
through mutual aid in any emergency or crisis, WAPA linked arms with 
customers to explore and begin to implement initiatives and solutions 
to address the long-term drought. Drought has been described as a slow-
moving natural disaster and that remains the case.
    Through careful planning, transparent rate-setting processes, and 
continuous stakeholder engagement, WAPA is committed to providing 
reliable and cost-effective federal hydroelectric power. We are 
continually refining our approaches to rate setting, ensuring the 
fiscal health of our projects, and effectively meeting the needs of our 
customer base. Our goal is to maintain financial stability and 
sustainability across all operations.

MARKET INTEGRATION

    WAPA's mission is to deliver clean, renewable, and reliable power, 
even as we navigate the complexities of modern energy markets and the 
imperatives of environmental stewardship. As we progress into an 
increasingly dynamic energy landscape, WAPA is taking decisive actions 
to enhance operational efficiency and adapt to new market conditions. A 
significant aspect of this strategy is engagement with the Southwest 
Power Pool (SPP) and involvement in critical federal hydropower 
initiatives.

    SPP RTO West Membership: In a landmark decision for WAPA, I 
authorized the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP), Rocky Mountain 
(RM) region, and Upper Great Plains (UGP) region to pursue final 
negotiations with the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) regarding entry to, or 
expansion of the Regional Transmission Organization (RTO). Final 
negotiations consist of WAPA working alongside SPP to develop tariff 
language for the WAPA terms and conditions approved by the SPP board. 
WAPA is also working with SPP on the implementation details of a 
technical solution to meet the needs of CRSP's Southern Division 
customers who are not in the SPP footprint. If final negotiations are 
successful, to include FERC approval, the SPP RTO is expected to go 
live in April 2026. This includes CRSP and RM executing SPP membership 
agreements and UGP expanding its participation, resulting in full 
membership as SPP RTO participants for all three regions. Full 
membership allows for SPP to expand its footprint as the market 
operator and will enable the broad operational and reliability benefits 
of the RTO to the west participants.
    Integrating into an RTO presents challenges, particularly in 
navigating governance and operational control changes. However, WAPA 
remains committed to ensuring these transitions uphold our mission and 
meet the needs of our stakeholders while mitigating associated market 
and cost risks.

TRANSMISSION SERVICES

    Our transmission services function undertakes strategic projects 
and initiatives to enhance infrastructure, integrate renewable energy 
sources, and maintain safety and reliability in the face of 
environmental challenges and community needs.
    One of our significant projects is the Trinity Public Utilities 
District (TPUD)-WAPA Right-of-Way Project, a collaborative effort with 
Trinity Public Utilities District in Northern California. This project 
focuses on expanding the right-of-way and enhancing vegetation 
management to mitigate wildfire risks and improve electrical 
reliability for communities in vulnerable areas. Such initiatives are 
critical as they directly impact our ability to maintain service 
integrity in regions prone to natural hazards.
    Additionally, the Rail Tie Wind Project, located south of Laramie, 
WY, is a 504-megawatt wind energy development that exemplifies WAPA's 
role in facilitating the integration of renewable energy. This project 
involves interconnecting to WAPA's Ault-Craig transmission line and 
highlights our commitment to supporting sustainable energy sources 
while supporting Tribal partners and adhering to environmental and 
regulatory standards.
    Integrating a diverse mix of renewable and conventional energy 
sources presents complex challenges, particularly in maintaining system 
reliability and managing extensive regulatory environments. These 
challenges require sophisticated strategic planning to balance 
technical, economic, and environmental considerations.
    WAPA's planning efforts also aim to address the aging 
infrastructure within the network. Modernization is paramount to 
keeping pace with technological advancements and regulatory 
requirements. This involves upgrading physical infrastructure and 
adopting innovative technologies and practices that enhance operational 
resilience and efficiency.

NATIONAL SECURITY

    WAPA is honored to have partnered with Beale Air Force Base (Beale) 
in California to provide redundant 230-kilvolt (kV) bulk electric 
system feed to improve reliability to Beale and bolster reliable 
operation of the base's critical national security mission. In addition 
to its critical national security role, Beale is also located in a Tier 
III high fire risk area. WAPA's interconnection will be outside the 
risk area and will utilize steel pole structures. This project is on 
schedule albeit challenged with supply chain issues facing much of the 
industry.

SAFETY AND SECURITY

    WAPA remains steadfast in its commitment to ensuring the highest 
safety and security standards across all facets of its operations. Our 
expansive network, which includes four control centers, over 300 
substations, and more than 17,000 miles of transmission lines, requires 
a vigilant and proactive approach to manage the myriad risks associated 
with such a vast infrastructure. Our commitment extends beyond mere 
compliance; it is about safeguarding communities, employees, and the 
systems that power the nation.

    SCADA Modernization: Another WAPA initiative is the Common SCADA/
EMS Vendor Project. This project aims to standardize SCADA (Supervisory 
Control and Data Acquisition) and EMS (Energy Management System) across 
all WAPA regions, enhancing our operational efficiencies and 
cybersecurity measures. By streamlining these systems, WAPA will boost 
overall system management capabilities, ensuring that operations are 
secure and adaptable to the evolving energy landscape.

    Cybersecurity Initiatives: In the realm of cybersecurity, WAPA has 
adopted a robust framework that prioritizes the protection of our 
critical infrastructure. Our cybersecurity initiatives are rigorously 
designed to mitigate risks and defend against potential breaches. We 
undertake comprehensive audits endorsed by authorities, including the 
DOE, OIG, and NERC, to ensure our defenses remain impenetrable. 
Furthermore, WAPA participates in national-level training and 
simulations, such as the DOE CyberFire and GridEX exercises, which 
prepare our team to handle emerging cyber threats effectively.
    Our ongoing cybersecurity enhancements, including the 
implementation of a Zero Trust Strategy and advancements in Multifactor 
Authentication and data encryption, have significantly fortified our 
systems. These measures align with recent executive orders and are 
crucial for maintaining the integrity and reliability of our 
operations.

    Physical Security: Physical security threats remain a top concern 
across the country and at WAPA. We have seen a near three-fold increase 
in incidents these last few years, from surveillance to theft to 
threatening behavior near our facilities. WAPA is vigilant and on alert 
while continuously assessing the threat landscape facing our assets and 
systems.
    WAPA's strategy involves a comprehensive assessment of 
vulnerabilities, ensuring the resilience of facilities and 
infrastructure. Regular risk assessments, compliant with North American 
Electric Reliability Corporation Critical Infrastructure Protection 
(NERC CIP) standards, and constant surveillance identify and mitigate 
potential threats. Our focus on updating security methodologies and 
enhancing collaboration with stakeholders ensures that physical 
security measures are practical and adaptive. WAPA collaborates closely 
with industry and agency counterparts on threat information, response 
and recovery planning, and threat mitigation strategies for both 
physical and cybersecurity.
    Recovery is an integral component of resilience and ensuring 
operations are put back into place in the most safe and timely manner 
possible. WAPA has shared over the years its continuing concern 
regarding the potential for multiple, simultaneous or cascading 
failures of bulk electric components on the system due to an attack or 
series of attacks. We have evaluated and continue to evaluate 
strategies for establishing or participating in reserves of high 
voltage transformers and likewise continue to encourage the public, the 
industry and Congress to reprioritize this important issue.

    Wildfire Prevention and Vegetation Management: Addressing 
environmental challenges, particularly wildfires, is paramount, given 
their frequency and severity in the regions we serve. WAPA's Integrated 
Vegetation Management (IVM) Program is essential for reducing 
vegetation around transmission lines and mitigating wildfire risks. 
WAPA's proactive approach includes updating wildfire mitigation plans 
annually, incorporating the latest technologies and best practices to 
enhance preparedness and response capabilities.
    Collaborations with local stakeholders and agencies play a vital 
role in the effectiveness of wildfire mitigation strategies. These 
partnerships are crucial for ensuring the safety and operational 
stability of the transmission network and protecting the communities 
that depend on it.
    As WAPA continues to navigate the complexities of maintaining a 
secure and reliable energy infrastructure, our commitment to safety and 
security remains unwavering. Through continuous improvement, advanced 
technology, and strategic partnerships, we are dedicated to upholding 
the highest safety and security standards to protect infrastructure and 
the communities we serve. Our ongoing efforts in cybersecurity, 
physical security, and wildfire risk management are integral to the 
mission and fundamental to the trust placed in WAPA by customers and 
the 40 million people we serve.

ASSET MANAGEMENT

    WAPA's Asset Management (AM) Program supports the reliable and 
efficient delivery of power. This program integrates comprehensive 
field knowledge with systematic criticality assessments to guide risk-
based, data-driven capital planning and maintenance decisions. Our 
strategic approach is designed to optimize the management of WAPA's 
most crucial assets, ensuring that our operations continue to meet high 
standards of reliability and efficiency.
    The primary goals of our Asset Management Program include improving 
asset management practices aligned with ISO 55001 standards, increasing 
the valuation of our assets, and prioritizing investments and 
operational activities. This comprehensive strategy is crucial for 
effectively communicating asset-related information to diverse internal 
groups and stakeholders, ensuring all parties are informed and engaged 
in our processes.
    Under the Asset Management Program, WAPA successfully completed its 
seventh annual asset risk assessment, focusing on key components such 
as transformers and breakers. Additionally, we continued condition-
based health analytics for our transmission lines. These initiatives 
were bolstered by the adoption of new IT tools, which has improved our 
data collection and analysis processes, thereby enhancing transparency 
and providing deeper insights into asset conditions.

    Supply Chain Management and Security: The Supply Chain Risk 
Management (SCRM) program is integral to WAPA's cybersecurity and 
procurement strategies, especially when paired with federal initiatives 
and standards such as Executive Order 14028 and NERC CIP-013. Our 
actions have included comprehensive vendor assessments and 
incorporating robust SCRM standards into operations, enhancing the 
security and reliability of WAPA's technology and supply chains.
    Looking to the future, the AM Program is poised for further growth 
and refinement. In FY2024, WAPA will perform a maturity assessment, a 
crucial step in the journey to align WAPA practices with industry best 
practices and prepare for future technological trends. This proactive 
approach is not just a strategy, but a necessity in a rapidly evolving 
energy environment. It is this forward-thinking mindset that will 
continue to maintain and advance WAPA's operational capabilities.

FY 2025 BUDGET REQUEST

    WAPA's success and operations are supported through management of 
three program and financing accounts: Construction, Rehabilitation, 
Operation, and Maintenance (CROM); Falcon and Amistad Operating and 
Maintenance Fund; and the Colorado River Basins Power Marketing Fund. 
Only CROM and Falcon and Amistad program and financing accounts request 
funds from appropriations.
    CROM is the largest account and includes four components: 
Construction and Rehabilitation (C&R); Operation and Maintenance (O&M); 
Purchase Power and Wheeling (PPW); and Program Direction (PD). C&R 
results in replacement, upgrade, and modernization of the electrical 
system infrastructure with an eye towards continued reliability, 
improved connectivity, and increased adaptability to the grid.
    For FY 2025, WAPA requests a total budget authority of $1.787 
billion, predominantly sustained through offsetting collections and 
alternative financing arrangements, which comprise 94% of the total 
funding. The budget supports critical operations, maintenance, and 
enhancements across WAPA's extensive transmission system and associated 
infrastructure.

    Appropriations and Funding: WAPA's Construction, Rehabilitation, 
Operation, and Maintenance (CROM) require a significant portion of the 
budget, totaling $1.178 billion, with $101 million (approximately 6% of 
total mission costs) coming from direct appropriations. The majority of 
CROM funding is sourced from offsetting collections ($777 million) and 
alternative financing ($301 million).

    Operational Increases: The projected increase in Operation and 
Maintenance (O&M) funding is crucial for addressing routine and 
strategic infrastructure needs across WAPA's transmission network. A 
significant portion of this increase--approximately $32 million--is 
allocated specifically for the replacement and upgrading of 
transmission lines, which includes the reconductoring of the DSW Gila 
Knob 161-KV and the RMR Alcova-Casper North/South lines. These upgrades 
are essential for improving reliability and safety within the network. 
The Gila Knob project will employ both conventional and advanced high-
temperature low sag conductors, enhancing the line's ampacity and 
resilience to high temperatures without compromising its structural 
integrity. Additionally, this project includes replacing existing wood 
structures with light-duty steel H-frames over 15 miles and steel 
monopoles over five miles. This hardens the infrastructure against 
climate-induced turbulent weather and consolidates transmission paths 
to free up land and minimize environmental impact.

    Stable Construction and Rehabilitation Funding: The Construction 
and Rehabilitation (C&R) budget remains static at $0, reflecting no 
projects classified under this category for FY 2025.

    Program Direction and Support: WAPA's Program Direction (PD) 
funding has risen by $25 million from $295 million in FY 2024 to $320 
million in FY 2025, maintaining a workforce of 1,521 full-time 
equivalents. This increase supports essential workforce expenses 
related to the operation, maintenance, construction, IT, and physical 
security of WAPA's high-voltage transmission system, including 
compensation for sophisticated control systems like SCADA. These 
systems are crucial for real-time operational management and ensuring 
grid reliability.

    Purchase Power and Wheeling Adjustments: The Purchase Power and 
Wheeling (PPW) budget is adjusted to $688.3 million, down from $715.8 
million in FY 2024, influenced by reservoir levels and weather impacts.

    CRSP Basin Fund: WAPA's FY2025 budget request for the Colorado 
River Basins Power Marketing Fund account is estimated at $584 million 
with no request from appropriations, funded instead through offsetting 
collections. CRSP carries out WAPA's mission in Arizona, Utah, 
Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Wyoming and Texas, selling about 5,300 
gigawatt hours to cities and towns, rural electric cooperatives, Native 
American tribes, irrigation districts and federal and state agencies. 
WAPA works with sister agencies, such as the Department of the 
Interior's Bureau of Reclamation, and other stakeholders, to address 
challenges in the basin while supplying critical power to customers. As 
CRSP does not rely on separate appropriations, the basin fund is an 
essential component of the success of the Colorado River Storage 
Project for both WAPA and Reclamation.

CHALLENGES AND RISK MANAGEMENT

    Financial Sustainability: The reliance on a blend of offsetting 
collections and alternative financing highlights WAPA's innovative 
approach to funding but also underscores the vulnerability to 
fluctuating market conditions and hydrological changes.

    Infrastructure and Service Reliability: With aging infrastructure 
and escalating supply chain costs and severe weather events, WAPA is 
challenged to maintain service reliability and compliance with 
regulatory standards without sufficient capital funding.

    Strategic Investments: The budget supports strategic investments in 
infrastructure resilience and cyber and physical security enhancements 
crucial for protecting the grid against emerging threats.

CLOSING STATEMENT

    Thank you for the opportunity to present the FY 2025 budget and 
operational priorities for WAPA. WAPA is at a critical juncture, facing 
both challenges and opportunities as we strive to maintain the 
reliability and affordability of our power and transmission services 
across the Western United States. Our commitment is to continue 
enhancing our infrastructure resilience, advancing technological 
innovation, and ensuring the security of our energy systems against 
physical and cyber threats. The agency continues to work with Congress, 
customers, and other stakeholders to secure the necessary support to 
effectively fulfill its mission.
    Thank you again for your trust and support. I look forward to our 
continued partnership in achieving these vital goals, and I am ready to 
address any further questions you might have.

                               Appendix 1

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

       STATEMENT OF MIKE WECH, ADMINISTRATOR, SOUTH-
         WESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF 
         ENERGY, TULSA, OKLAHOMA

    Mr. Wech. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I 
am Mike Wech, Administrator of the Southwestern Power 
Administration. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
    Since 1943, Southwestern has marketed and delivered Federal 
hydropower and energy in our region from 24 U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers multi-purpose projects. With a combined capacity of 
2.2 gigawatts and an average annual energy of 5,000 gigawatt 
hours, Southwestern collects about $200 million a year in 
revenue. Our staff works from offices in Arkansas, Missouri, 
and Oklahoma. We own and operate about 1,400 miles of high 
voltage transmission line, 26 substations, and 46 communication 
sites that support regional and national energy security. The 
customers we serve are not-for-profit municipalities, electric 
cooperatives, and military installations that depend on Federal 
hydropower and the energy received from Southwestern to serve 
over 10 million electric consumers in our area of the country.
    Our system of reservoirs is almost entirely dependent upon 
rainfall. Operations are regularly impacted by rain events, and 
we work with other water users so that we can continue to meet 
the power needs of our customers under a variety of water 
conditions. In some cases we have to purchase power so that we 
can meet our obligations to our customers and the consumers 
that they serve. To fund those purchases, we have historically 
relied on our congressional authority to use our receipts over 
the long term. Prior-year balances have been available to 
Southwestern so that we are financially prepared and able to 
achieve rate stability.
    Southwestern's program is cost-based, funded by our 
ratepayers. We perform power repayment studies annually to 
review the projected and actual costs of operating our business 
to assure that sufficient revenues are being collected to repay 
those costs, along with the principal and interest on the 
Federal investment. Southwestern remains cost conscious, always 
seeking ways to maximize value amidst rising costs.
    At the request of our customers, Southwestern is developing 
a program to equitably distribute renewable energy 
certificates, or RECs, to its customers based on each megawatt 
hour of Federal energy generated.
    We also continue to invest in our generating assets through 
our customer funding initiative. To date, over $1.2 billion in 
funding has been approved by our customers, who know that this 
kind of investment is crucial to keeping Federal hydropower 
reliable. Southwestern has consistently proven that dependable 
Federal assets contribute to the reliability of the regional 
electrical grid. During recent winter storms, Southwestern 
provided voltage support, assisted with transmission congestion 
relief, and worked with other stakeholders to ensure that the 
lights stayed on.
    As part of the regional grid, Southwestern participates in 
strategic planning and other initiatives. Our decades-long 
participation in the Southwest Power Pool promotes cooperation 
amongst regional stakeholders, while our participation in the 
Midcontinent Independent System Operator allows options to 
purchase power when needed, and will enable us to directly 
market two projects into MISO later this year.
    From an agency perspective, we continue to engage in 
strategic planning, with safety as our No. 1 goal. We were 
honored to be recognized once again this year with the Safety 
Award of Excellence from the American Public Power Association. 
This year's strategic planning effort, Set to Thrive in 2025, 
incorporates safety, workforce excellence, operational 
excellence, collaborative partnering, and evolving services. 
Southwestern is committed to these strategic goals and to our 
mission of providing Federal hydropower that benefits our 
customers, regional communities, and the nation.
    Southwestern's Fiscal Year 2025 request for appropriations 
is $11.44 million, and includes offsetting collection 
authorities and alternative financing, both of which are 
essential to Southwestern accomplishing its mission through 
minimal congressional appropriations.
    Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be 
pleased to address any questions that you or members of the 
Subcommittee may have.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Wech follows:]
    
  Prepared Statement of Mike Wech, Administrator, Southwestern Power 
               Administration, U.S. Department of Energy

    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the 
opportunity to share information about the FY 2025 budget of 
Southwestern Power Administration (Southwestern).
    Southwestern has marketed and delivered Federal hydropower since 
1943. Our service territory includes Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, 
Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas, and customers in these states depend on 
Federal hydropower to keep their economies strong and help their 
constituents thrive. Southwestern is proud to support the farms, 
businesses, and factories in these areas, and I look forward to sharing 
with you today an overview of our program and some of the current 
initiatives we are working on that will allow us to continue our 
service in the future.

SOUTHWESTERN PROFILE

    Southwestern markets and delivers hydroelectric power from 24 U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) multi-purpose dams with a combined 
capacity of 2,243 megawatts (MW). On average, Southwestern markets 
5,600,000 MW-hours of energy annually, with revenue of approximately 
$200 million per year.
    The energy produced at the hydroelectric power plants flows mainly 
over transmission assets owned by Southwestern. Our 1,381 miles of 
high-voltage transmission lines, 26 substations and switching stations, 
and a communications system that includes digital microwave, VHF radio, 
and fiber optic communications are an integral part of the regional 
electrical grid.
    We have a staff of approximately 180 full-time equivalent Federal 
employees and approximately 50 contractors who work out of offices in 
Gore, Oklahoma; Jonesboro, Arkansas; Nixa, Missouri; Springfield, 
Missouri; and Tulsa, Oklahoma. Around-the-clock power scheduling and 
dispatching are conducted by staff in Southwestern's Nixa and 
Springfield Operations Centers.
    Southwestern employees are dedicated professionals, conscientious 
in ensuring that costs are kept to a minimum. They understand that 
every dollar Southwestern receives in revenue is dedicated to the 
repayment of the Nation's investment, with interest, in our program, 
and they also understand that Southwestern's ratepayers are the ones 
footing the bill.

SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS

    Southwestern often describes its system of 24 reservoirs as 
``hydro-only,'' meaning that those reservoirs are almost entirely 
dependent on rainfall. In general, when it rains and inflows into the 
reservoirs and river channels are sufficient, hydropower generation 
flourishes; when it does not rain, hydropower generation suffers.
    Operations are regularly impacted by the rainfall we receive in our 
region, both too little and too much, and we work with other water 
users so that we can continue to meet the power needs of our customers 
under a variety of water conditions.
    In some cases, due to drought, downstream flooding, operational 
restrictions, or other contributing factors, Southwestern's contractual 
obligations to provide power exceed the amount of hydropower that is 
available. Southwestern must continually balance Federal hydropower 
needs against the needs of other water users and current energy market 
conditions when determining whether to purchase power to meet 
contractual obligations.

FUNDING

    Power purchases have historically been funded by Southwestern 
through Congressional authority to use our receipts over the long-
term--across good water years and bad. Prior year balances have been 
available to Southwestern so that we are financially prepared and able 
to achieve rate stability for our customers. After five years of 
decreased funding, in FY 2023 and FY 2024 we received our full 
offsetting collections authority request for purchase power and 
wheeling, and the President's FY 2025 Budget requests a continuation of 
this authority that is critical to operating our program according to 
sound business principles.
    Southwestern's program is funded by authority to use receipts, 
alternative financing, and other authorities approved by Congress, 
including appropriations, which traditionally have represented only 
about 6% of Southwestern's total program. Generally, the more funding 
flexibility we have, the more efficiently we can operate our business 
and provide a high-value product to our customers.

RATES AND REPAYMENT

    Southwestern's program is cost-based, funded by our ratepayers. We 
perform Power Repayment Studies annually to review the projected and 
actual costs of operating our business to assure that sufficient 
revenues are being collected to repay those costs, along with the 
principal and interest on the Federal investment.
    Power Repayment Studies, conducted in 2023, indicate the need for 
more revenue across all three of our rate systems to meet repayment 
obligations due to rising cost estimates for future transmission and 
hydropower infrastructure investments, elevated interest rates, and 
increased costs for operations and maintenance.
    We are in the process of developing new rate schedules to reflect 
the needed revenue increase and have extended our current rate 
schedules through September 30, 2024. We have concluded the public 
comment period for one of our rate systems, and expect to open the 
public comment period for the additional rate systems within the month.
    Southwestern remains cost conscious always, seeking ways to 
maximize value amidst rising costs. Our support of the regional 
electrical grid during recent winter weather events is a good example 
of the value of Federal hydropower. To put it simply, hydropower showed 
up to help keep the lights on during Winter Storm Uri in 2021, during 
Winter Storm Elliott in 2023, and, most recently, in January of this 
year during Winter Storm Heather. We were able to provide voltage 
support, assist with transmission congestion relief, and worked with 
the Regional Transmission Organizations to ensure the bulk transmission 
system remained reliable during these periods.

INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT

    To keep hydropower available, the generating plants must be ready 
to operate. The year 2024 marks the silver anniversary--25 years--of 
Southwestern's customer funding program. Since 1999, through a 
memorandum of agreement (MOA) among Southwestern, its customers, and 
the Corps, we have provided funding to keep the turbines spinning 
without the need for annual appropriations. To date, over $1.2 billion 
in funding has been approved by our customers for use in replacing 
aging, obsolete, and failing equipment at the Corps hydroelectric power 
plants. This kind of investment is crucial to keeping Federal 
hydropower viable, and customers have steadfastly supported this effort 
since the beginning.

SAFETY

    Southwestern is in many respects a typical electric utility. As 
such, we sell and deliver power, develop rates to recover our costs, 
and maintain our assets so that the lights stay on, all the while 
maintaining safe operating procedures and practices.
    In fact, this is the second year in a row Southwestern was 
recognized for its safe operating practices. In March 2024, 
Southwestern was awarded a Safety Award of Excellence from the American 
Public Power Association (APPA). APPA bestows the award based on 
incident-free records and the overall state of the safety programs and 
culture, elements that Southwestern takes great pride in.

REGIONAL TRANSMISSION PLANNING

    Southwestern is taking part in studies under the DOE Grid 
Deployment Office for interconnections between Regional Transmission 
Organizations to bolster the electric infrastructure in our region. 
These studies involve the use of Southwestern's facilities as part of 
Southwest Power Pool (SPP), and could result in future interconnections 
between SPP and the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), 
and between SPP and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). 
Interconnections of this magnitude have the potential of strengthening 
the backbone of the Nation's economic, energy, and national security 
infrastructure.

RENEWABLE ENERGY CERTIFICATES

    It is often said that Federal hydropower is one of the original 
renewable energy sources in the Nation, and our customers have been 
seeking the benefits that go along with purchasing this renewable 
energy from Southwestern. To that end, Southwestern is developing a 
program to equitably distribute Renewable Energy Certificates--or 
RECs--to its customers based on each MWh of Federal Energy generated.
    This distribution of RECs will allow our customers to support their 
respective state's renewable energy goals, provide the opportunity to 
offset their carbon footprint and support clean energy, and build 
stronger relationships within their communities.
    I want to commend my colleagues at Southeastern Power 
Administration for their expertise implementing a successful REC 
program and for sharing their experience so that Southwestern can begin 
distributing RECs to our customers.

MARKET PARTICIPATION IN MISO

    Southwestern registered as a Market Participant in MISO in June 
2021 in response to a need for Southwestern to better position itself 
to align with electric industry initiatives and to ensure, as drought 
and hydrological challenges occur, that Southwestern has additional 
options to purchase power. As an extension of that effort, we will 
begin directly marketing two Corps-owned projects in Arkansas into 
MISO, with DeGray--beginning June 1, 2024, and Blakely Mountain 
beginning June 1, 2025
    Benefits of this effort will include optimizing these generation 
resources to provide maximum value for our customers while reducing our 
capacity replacement costs due to long term outages for rehabilitation 
and infrastructure investment.

STRATEGIC PLANNING EFFORTS

    Southwestern is constantly working to provide the best possible 
product for our customers while also providing the best possible work 
environment and strategic direction for our organization. To that end, 
Southwestern has implemented our latest Strategic Planning Effort--Set 
to Thrive in 2025. The revised strategic plan incorporates elements to 
achieve success and clear direction in the following areas: Workforce 
Excellence, Operational Excellence, Collaborative Partnering, and 
Evolving Services.

BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS

    Southwestern's FY 2025 request for appropriations is $11.44 
million. The FY 2025 budget request also includes offsetting collection 
authorities, including the up-to request of $80 million for purchase 
power and wheeling. The use of offsetting collection authorities as 
well as alternative financing are essential to Southwestern 
accomplishing its mission with minimal Congressional appropriations.

CONCLUSION

    Southwestern remains committed to our core values and strategic 
direction. We strive for workforce and operational excellence, a safe 
and healthy workplace, increased value for our customers, and rate 
stability. We also look forward to opportunities to continue investing 
in the Nation's infrastructure and exploring ways that we can be a part 
of strengthening grid resiliency and supporting the Nation's energy 
security.
    Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to 
address any questions that you or the Members of the Subcommittee may 
have.

                                 ______
                                 
  Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Mike Wech, Administrator, 
                   Southwestern Power Administration

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

            Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman

    Question 1. In November, you testified before this committee at a 
legislative hearing on H.R. 4219, the Southwestern Power Administration 
Revolving Fund, which would create a self-financed fund through 
Southwestern's power sales receipts. In your testimony, you said that 
the Administration did not have a position at that time. Do you have a 
position now? Are SWPA's customers united in wanting this legislation 
to advance?

    Question 2. In December, the USACE shut down power production at 
Narrows Dam in my district in order to repair its trash racks. 
Approximately how much power does Narrows produce? Do you have an 
estimated timeline for when the repairs will be made so power can be 
restored?

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. I now recognize Administrator Hobbs 
for 5 minutes.

      STATEMENT OF VIRGIL HOBBS, ADMINISTRATOR AND CEO,
        SOUTHEASTERN POWER  ADMINISTRATION,  DEPARTMENT 
        OF ENERGY, ELBERTON, GEORGIA

    Mr. Hobbs. Subcommittee Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member 
Huffman, and members of the Committee, I am Virgil Hobbs. I am 
the Southeastern Power Administrator. I appreciate the 
opportunity to share current program accomplishments, upcoming 
initiatives, and our Fiscal Year 2025 budget request.
    Southeastern's mission is to market and deliver Federal 
hydroelectric power at the lowest possible cost, consistent 
with sound business principles, to public bodies and 
cooperatives in accordance with the Flood Control Act of 1944. 
Southeastern's 44 full-time employees market approximately 
3,400 megawatts of power produced at 22 multi-purpose projects 
operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The projects are 
separated into four marketing systems and serve the 11 states 
of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi, 
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West 
Virginia.
    In Fiscal Year 2023, Southeastern sold nearly 7\1/2\ 
billion kilowatt hours of energy to 471 wholesale customers, 
with revenue totaling $307 million. Over 12 million consumers 
benefit from Southeastern's Federal hydropower. Southeastern 
coordinates the operation of these Federal carbon-free 
generation assets from our office and dispatch centers in rural 
Elberton, Georgia. Southeastern does not own transmission 
facilities, but delivers allocation of Federal hydropower 
through lines and substations operated by neighboring 
utilities. Power sales revenue is used by Southeastern to 
compensate transmission service providers through long-term 
energy wheeling contracts.
    Federal hydropower must remain a competitive and viable 
component to our customers' energy portfolios. Regional energy 
variables, including the reduction of baseload coal generation, 
new nuclear reactors connected to the local grid, fluctuations 
in natural gas prices, and intermittent alternative renewable 
resources have made affordable, reliable Federal hydropower 
vitally essential to our customers.
    Southeastern's ability to consistently deliver needed 
energy, as we did during Winter Storm Heather this past 
January, has earned high praise and appreciation from our 
customers.
    The transmission service provider at the Jim Woodruff 
Project notified Southeastern in 2022 of their intent to 
terminate a vintage contract dated back to 1957, a bundled 
transmission arrangement where deficient stream flow energy was 
purchased from, and excess Federal hydropower was sold to, an 
investor-owned utility. Over the last 2 years, Southeastern 
formalized and implemented a power marketing policy to address 
energy delivery decisions associated with this single project 
electrical system, and in April began delivering all available 
power to only public power customers in Florida.
    Efforts to provide Renewable Energy Certificates, or RECs, 
associated with Southeastern Federal hydropower generation 
began in 2019. Potentially, Southeastern can create 6 million 
REC each year across all of Southeastern's marketed systems. 
Since inception, 25 million RECs have been verified as 
generated, and 15 million RECs have been enthusiastically 
distributed to our Federal power customers, having purchased 
the accompanying energy. Southeastern's customers are extremely 
grateful to be accessing this intrinsic additional economic 
benefit linked to the Federal hydropower.
    The Water Resources Development Act of 1996 and 2000 
enables hydropower customers to provide funding to improve 
generation infrastructure. Since 2004, at the direction of our 
customers, Southeastern has transferred $872 million of energy 
and capacity sale receipts to the Corps for hydropower 
equipment replacements.
    Southeastern's Kerr-Philpott system customers are excited 
to be rehabilitating the smallest Federal hydropower plant, 
Philpott, by authorizing $23 million to increase the station's 
2-generator output from 14 megawatts, nearly 30 percent, to 20 
megawatts. The contractor has completed both generator rewinds, 
is fabricating two new turbines, and will finish ahead of 
schedule.
    Southeastern has begun implementing a 4-year strategic 
plan, with initiatives dedicated to employee engagement, 
relationship enhancement, and organizational modernization. 
This year, Southeastern petitioned personnel to form small, 
comfortable focus groups to share perspectives and office 
improvement ideas. Senior leadership will hear directly from 
our most valuable asset, our employees, to better the work 
experience at Southeastern.
    The future success of hydropower relies heavily on our 
ability to find solutions to complex challenges threatening the 
program through higher costs and reduced generation. These 
critical issues are discussed routinely with customers and the 
Corps at biannual partnering meetings.
    Southeastern's Fiscal Year 2025 operating budget request is 
a net zero appropriation of $9 million for program direction 
expenses and $90 million for purchased power and wheeling 
costs, which are completely reimbursed by power sales 
collections.
    March 21, 2025 marks Southeastern's 75th anniversary of 
proudly delivering Federal carbon-free hydroelectric power in 
an energetic energy environment.
    I thank the Committee for the opportunity to submit this 
testimony and highlight the extraordinary accomplishments of 
Southeastern's civil servants.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hobbs follows:]
    
   Prepared Statement of Virgil G. Hobbs III, Administrator & Chief 
Executive, Southeastern Power Administration, U.S. Department of Energy

    Subcommittee Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and Members of 
the Committee, I am Virgil Hobbs, Administrator of the Southeastern 
Power Administration (Southeastern). I appreciate the opportunity to 
share the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 budget request for Southeastern, 
including current program issues, recent agency accomplishments and 
upcoming activity.

Southeastern Power Administration Profile

    Southeastern's mission is to market and deliver Federal 
hydroelectric power at the lowest possible cost, consistent with sound 
business principles, to public bodies and cooperatives in accordance 
with Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s).
    With a staff of 44 full-time employees, Southeastern markets 
approximately 3400 megawatts of power produced at 22 multipurpose 
projects, operated and maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
(Corps). The projects are separated into four marketing systems and 
serve an eleven-state area, including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, 
Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, 
Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. Each marketed electrical system 
is integrated hydraulically and financially with separate cost-based 
power rates and repayment schedules. In FY 2023, Southeastern sold 
nearly seven and a half billion kilowatt-hours of energy to 471 
wholesale customers with revenue totaling $307 million. Southeastern's 
Federal hydropower extends to over 12 million residential and 
industrial consumers.
    Southeastern coordinates the operation of these Federal carbon free 
generation assets from our dispatch centers in rural Elberton, Georgia. 
We use customer determined load schedules and the North American 
Electric Reliability Corporation's (NERC) power balancing control 
performance criteria, while complying with the Corps' water management 
and environmental requirements.
    Southeastern does not own any transmission facilities but delivers 
allocations of Federal power through transmission lines and substations 
owned and operated by neighboring utilities. Electric power sales 
revenue is used by Southeastern to compensate these transmission 
service providers through long-term energy Purchasing Power and 
Wheeling contracts.
    Rates charged to our wholesale customers recover all of 
Southeastern's and the Corps' power related costs. Southeastern's rate 
schedules are designed to recoup expenses, on an annual basis, for 
operations, maintenance, purchased power, transmission, and interest. 
Rates also recover infrastructure improvement investments which are 
capitalized over an appropriate number of years.
    Southeastern's mission is achieved in a manner promoting the 
maintenance and upgrade of our region's Federal energy infrastructure. 
These efforts help to ensure reliable and efficient delivery of Federal 
carbon free hydroelectric power, which is an integral part of the 
Nation's overall security and electric energy supply.

Federal Hydropower Program in Evolving Energy Markets

    Southeastern is committed to the mission detailed in our governing 
law, the Flood Control Act of 1944, to employ sound business principles 
in delivering power to our customers at the lowest possible rates. 
Federal hydropower must remain a competitive and viable component of 
the customer's energy resource portfolios to support the region as the 
energy landscape in the Southeast evolves. Energy variables including 
the reduction of base load coal generation, new nuclear reactors 
connected to the local grid, fluctuations in natural gas prices and 
intermittent alternative renewable resources have made affordable, 
reliable Federal hydropower vitally essential to our customers. 
Southeastern's ability to consistently deliver energy, such as through 
Winter Storm Heather in January 2024, has earned high praise and 
appreciation from our consumers.
    The Southeastern Energy Exchange Market (SEEM) was established in 
the Fall of 2022 as a bilateral energy trading platform and uses an 
algorithm to match power buyers and sellers while further optimizing 
available generation and transmission assets. As a cost-free 
participant in SEEM, Southeastern will lower replacement and pumping 
energy purchase price by expanding the pool of potential power 
providers. Southeastern will pass on savings achieved by participation 
in SEEM to our Federal power customers.

Jim Woodruff Power Marketing Policy

    The transmission service provider at the Jim Woodruff project 
notified Southeastern in 2022 of their intent to terminate a 66-year-
old interchange agreement in favor of modern Open Access Transmission 
Tariff service. The original 1957 contract was a bundled arrangement 
where deficient stream flow energy was purchased from, and excess 
Federal hydropower was sold to, an investor-owned utility. Southeastern 
formalized and implemented a power marketing policy to address 
generation capacity and energy delivery decisions associated with this 
single project, run-of-the-river electrical system and has begun 
delivering all available power to only public and cooperative power 
customers in the central panhandle Florida. No changes in stream flow 
operations or to the amount and timing of energy production was 
required to initiate the policy.

Renewable Energy Certificates

    Efforts to provide Renewable Energy Certificates (REC) associated 
with Southeastern's Federal hydropower generation began in 2019 and REC 
distributions are enthusiastically proceeding. The potential REC volume 
is approximately six million per year across all four of Southeastern's 
marketed systems. Since program inception, over 25 million RECs have 
been verified as generated and 15 million RECs have been distributed to 
our Federal power customers having purchased the associated energy. 
Southeastern's customers are extremely grateful to be accessing this 
intrinsic additional economic benefit linked to Federal hydropower.

Federal Hydropower Infrastructure Investment

    The Water Resources Development Act of 1996 section 216, as amended 
by section 212 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 
U.S.C. 2321a), enables hydropower customers to provide the Corps 
funding to improve generation infrastructure reliability and 
capability. Since 2004, at the direction of our customers, Southeastern 
has transferred $872 million of energy and capacity sale receipts to 
accomplish hydropower equipment replacements and renewals.
    In 2012, Southeastern's Cumberland System customers agreed to fund 
$1.2 billion of planned rehabilitations of all 28 generation assets 
housed in the nine hydroelectric facilities operated by the Corps' 
Nashville District. With three units complete, eight more generators 
and seven turbines at the Barkley and Old Hickory projects are being 
replaced to improve reliability and increase maximum energy output. 
Perpetuating the cleanness and greenness of hydropower, Cumberland 
power customers also authorized $24 million to commission a dissolved 
oxygen injection system upstream of the Wolf Creek project to 
reestablish year-round full power output by providing downstream fish 
friendly habitat.
    Southeastern's Kerr-Philpott System customers are excited to be 
rehabilitating the smallest Federal hydropower plant, Philpott, by 
authorizing $23 million to increase the station's output. Located in 
southwestern Virginia and operated by the Corps' Wilmington District, 
Philpott is a 14 megawatt two generator facility which will be upgraded 
nearly 30% to 20 megawatts! The contractor has completed both generator 
stator rewinds, is fabricating two new turbines, is well ahead of 
schedule and will be finished before the local utility can complete the 
transmission line replacement.

Upcoming Rate Developments

    Southeastern formulates and proposes marketed power system rates 
through a public process and places rates into effect on an interim 
basis. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) confirms all of 
Southeastern's rates on a final basis for a five-year term. Annual 
adjustments, based on actual operational results and infrastructure 
investment placed into service, enable rates to respond accordingly 
within the term to assure proper repayment. Southeastern reviews all 
marketed system rates annually to ensure revenue is adequate to meet 
repayment obligations. In 2025, Southeastern will propose new rates for 
the Cumberland and Kerr-Philpott Systems.

Workplace Transformation Response

    Southeastern ensures available Federal power is delivered to the 
grid for the benefit of regional public customers. Southeastern is 
determined to accomplish this mission with shared vision and values. 
Southeastern is implementing a 2025-2029 Strategic Plan with 
initiatives dedicated to Employee Engagement, Relationship Enhancement, 
and Organizational Modernization. This year, Southeastern petitioned 
personnel to form small, voluntary and comfortable focus groups, 
moderated by our Human Resource Business Partner, to share perspectives 
and office improvement ideas. Senior leadership will hear directly from 
our most valuable asset, our employees, to better the work experience 
at Southeastern.

Customer and Federal Partner Relationship

    Southeastern maintains strong cooperative working relationships 
with our customers and the Corps. Future success of the Federal 
hydropower program in the southeast relies heavily on the success of 
those relationships and our ability to find solutions to complex 
challenges threating the program through higher costs and reduced 
generation capability. Financial and operational issues are discussed 
at the Southeastern Federal Power Alliance and Team Cumberland biannual 
meetings.
    The Southeastern Federal Power Alliance was established in 1991 and 
includes representatives from Southeastern, the Corps' South Atlantic 
Division and Southeastern's customers served by the Georgia-Alabama-
South Carolina, Kerr-Philpott and Jim Woodruff Systems. Team Cumberland 
was formed in 1992 and includes representatives from Southeastern, the 
Corps' Great Lakes and Ohio River Division and Southeastern's 
Cumberland System customers, which are located both inside and outside 
the Tennessee Valley Authority's area of operation.
    Over the past seven and a half years, fellow Administrators and I 
have met with Corps Commanding Generals to discuss topics critical to 
the sustainability of our jointly managed Federal Hydroelectric Power 
Program. Areas identified where changes can reap benefits include 
infrastructure acquisition strategies, cost accounting, water storage 
management, operations and maintenance staffing efficiencies and common 
communication plans.

Southeastern's Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Request

    Southeastern's FY 2025 operating budget request of approximately 
$98.9 million results in a net appropriation of $0 (Attachment 1). The 
FY 2025 budget request provides $9.1 million for Program Direction 
expenses, which are completely offset by collections for these annual 
expenses and use of prior year balances, and $89.8 million for Purchase 
Power and Wheeling costs, which are entirely supported with offsetting 
collections and net billing. Southeastern contracts with interconnected 
utilities for transmission service to deliver Federal power to 
customers at an estimated annual cost of $45 million. In recent years, 
dependent on hydrology and energy market volatility, Southeastern's 
purchases has varied between $4 million and $85 million for replacement 
energy and pumped storage energy to fulfil Federal power customer 
contracts. The use of offsetting collections and net billing enables 
Southeastern to operate in a business fashion by allowing 
Southeastern's revenues to pay for purchase power and transmission 
costs rather than relying on appropriations. No new program starts are 
planned in this FY 2025 Budget Request.
    Fiscal Year 2025 marks Southeastern's 75th anniversary of proudly 
delivering Federal carbon free hydroelectric power in an energetic 
electric energy environment at the lowest possible cost, consistent 
with sound business principles. Thank you for the opportunity to submit 
this testimony.

                              Attachment 1

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, and I thank the witnesses for their 
testimony. We will now move to Member questions. Each Member 
will have 5 minutes.
    Congressman Graves, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for 
being here. I appreciate your testimony.
    Dr. Spinrad, I want to thank you for allocating additional 
funds to red snapper research last year. I do appreciate that, 
and I think it is critically important that we continue working 
to improve the data to where we can more accurately and more 
sustainably manage the fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico.
    And as we know, the data that the five Gulf states is 
collecting is more accurate, I also want to thank you for the 
recalibration that was announced on Monday. I believe that was 
for Florida, Mississippi, and Alabama. It is progress. But as 
we both know, we still have a long way to go.
    Lastly on this topic, I just want to say that we continue 
to have a great deal of frustration, as you and I have 
discussed in the past, with the lack of integration of the 
great red snapper count, which is the most robust, the most 
accurate assessment of the stock in the Gulf of Mexico, and 
NOAA refusing to actually incorporate that into management 
strategies. But let me say it again, thank you for working with 
the Gulf Council, the Commission, and the states.
    Let me pivot to the North Atlantic right whale issue. We 
had been asking for a while for NOAA to engage some of the 
stakeholders, some of the folks with different technology, and 
it appeared that we were moving in the right direction when 
NOAA actually held a workshop with some of the folks that had 
technology that, for example, is being used in Canada to avoid 
strikes. But I couldn't help but feel that that was really 
disingenuous when the same exact day that workshop occurred 
NOAA submitted the rule to OIRA for review.
    How could you all possibly have taken into consideration 
anything that was presented in the workshop, if you are turning 
over your proposed rule to OIRA the same day?
    Dr. Spinrad. Thank you for the question, Congressman, and I 
share the concerns.
    First of all, thank you for your complimentary comments 
with respect to red snapper management. I think we have made a 
lot of progress there. I point out my boss just received today 
the letter from a bipartisan collection of roughly two dozen 
Members who shared the sentiments with respect to the progress 
we have made on red snapper.
    On the North Atlantic right whale, things are changing 
considerably. And our responsibilities, as reflected in both 
the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection 
Act, have required us to continue to have the dialogue, as well 
as taking into account the latest and most appropriate science 
and economic analysis, especially in light of the fact that we 
have, since 1999, seen 29 lethal vessel strikes. Just this 
year, we have seen one entanglement and three vessel strikes 
off the East Coast, dictating that we move with some alacrity.
    We provide the best analysis possible, and we incorporate 
all of the input that we have received. And I assure you that 
all of the input that we received was included in what we have 
now provided to OIRA under----
    Mr. Graves. Dr. Spinrad, I appreciate that, but let's be 
honest. It is impossible for NOAA to have incorporated what you 
received, what you learned at a workshop the same day that you 
turned over a rule to OIRA, so that was impossible. And let's 
be clear there.
    Let me just ask you, what can we actually expect to see in 
a final rule? I think everyone here shares the objective of 
ensuring the whale's sustainability, but also not using tools 
that are going to be ineffective and create safety issues when 
they are more effective technologies available such as are 
being deployed by the Canadians.
    Dr. Spinrad. I assure you we are having dialogue with the 
Canadians. We are also having dialogue with our partners in 
other Federal agencies who have technological approaches.
    Like I say, the final rule is with OIRA right now. I cannot 
give an update on the timeline. I suggest that you ask----
    Mr. Graves. If you could submit something back to the 
Committee on the timeline, I would appreciate it, and what we 
can expect to see.
    Secondly, on the Rice's whale in the Gulf of Mexico, I know 
that NOAA is moving in a direction of finalizing a rule there, 
as well. There are numerous studies that directly conflict with 
the outcomes or the conclusions that NOAA has reached. Can you 
give me a commitment that NOAA will review this alternative 
data before you submit a final rule?
    Dr. Spinrad. First of all, the Rice's whale, as you know, 
is limited to the Gulf of Mexico. We are committed to using the 
best available science. If you have science that you believe is 
not being incorporated, I will tell you we are using whatever 
we receive as recently as, I would add, just a month ago, when 
we received some of the very first images of Rice's whale that 
are being incorporated. So, we are welcoming the inclusion of 
additional scientific information.
    Mr. Graves. Dr. Spinrad, we have had thousands of hours of 
acoustic monitoring off the coast of Louisiana. You haven't 
detected a single whale there, yet your zone is right off the 
coast of Louisiana.
    Dr. Spinrad. But we are seeing them with aerial surveys.
    Mr. Graves. I am not the smartest guy here, but that 
doesn't look like you are incorporating data or taking proper 
science into consideration.
    Mr. Chairman, I apologize. I am out of time and yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Congresswoman 
Napolitano for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Commissioner Touton, the Bureau has been 
working to implement the funding secured under our 
infrastructure law for large-scale water recycling projects. 
But one investment is, frankly, not enough. One-time investment 
is, frankly, not enough. There must be continuous funding to 
grow, construct, maintain, and operate these facilities, which 
is why I am proud to introduce the Large-Scale Water Recycling 
Reauthorization and Investment Act to reauthorize funding for 
water recycling and reuse projects in the West.
    It is imperative that we work to address climate change now 
to protect our water supplies and increase the presence of 
regional large-scale water projects. Could you speak how the 
Bureau is prioritizing water recycling on the 2025 budget?
    Ms. Touton. I would be pleased to, Congresswoman.
    First, thank you for your championship of water recycling 
projects and now large-scale water recycling projects.
    In our Fiscal Year 2025 budget, including in our Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law work plan for Fiscal Year 2025, we have $263 
million for water recycling projects. You asked me specifically 
about large-scale water recycling. We are looking to make 
funding announcements for construction of large-scale water 
recyclings in the near future. I am happy to follow up with you 
on specifics, but we look to continue the work that you have 
championed, and get real wet water to those communities.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much. But what recycling 
and reuse projects are critical components in water security as 
we move forward, especially in Colorado River Basin?
    You have been engaging with the Basin states and tribes 
regarding the ongoing post-2026 operations negotiations. Until 
then, we are operating under the 2007 Interim Guidelines in the 
Drought Contingency Plan. Could you explain to the Committee 
how the funds for the Drought Contingency Plan are being 
implemented currently, and how are discussions going with Basin 
states and tribes?
    Ms. Touton. Absolutely, Congresswoman.
    Regarding the Drought Contingency Plan, we have allocated 
$138 million of that already, thank you again to Congress for 
those funds, including $25 million that we announced last month 
for Yuma East Wetlands and the Topock Marsh. Those are critical 
components of our ability to be able to deliver water, but also 
protect the ecosystem within the Colorado River basin.
    You asked about negotiations for post-2026. First, so 
excited to have the Secretary sign the Record of Decision 
stabilizing the near-term operations at Colorado River. We are 
focused now on what operations look like from 2026 and beyond. 
We are working with the entire Basin states and the sovereign 
nations. I have personally visited half of the 30 sovereign 
nations. And we have a Federal state-tribal partnership 
meeting: 30 sovereign nations, 7 basin states, and the Federal 
Government meeting on a very frequent basis on these operations 
for the future.
    So, everyone is at the table to be able to find consensus 
on the Colorado River.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for being so inclusive.
    Dr. Rick Spinrad, in 2020 NOAA submitted a report to 
Congress describing actions needed to support water management, 
which included starting a pilot project to improve winter 
precipitation forecasting in the West. Creating reliable 
precipitation forecasts is vital for our cities, agricultural 
producers, and water agencies. So, I was very disheartened to 
see that NOAA's budget proposed significant cuts to its weather 
and climate research programs.
    Can you give me an update on how NOAA is working to improve 
subseasonal to seasonal forecasting?
    Is there any movement on creating a pilot program to 
improve forecasting for water management?
    Dr. Spinrad. Thank you, Congresswoman. Also, let me add my 
appreciation for your continued support in our work.
    I assure you, we are continuing our investment in the 
efforts associated with integrated water in the West. As I am 
sure you well know, we have put a particular focus on the 
precipitation forecasts associated with atmospheric rivers, the 
largest majority of precipitation that affects agriculture 
that, as you already heard from the power administration reps 
on the panel here, affects operations of our dams and affects 
the hydrology of the West completely. Our efforts are going to 
focus largely on atmospheric rivers and improving the forecast.
    We are also investing some of the Inflation Reduction Act 
resources we got into improving the climatology of 
precipitation. The current climatologies we have in some cases 
are 20 or 30 years old.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much. And the last question 
would be for Ms. LeBeau.
    What is the ongoing wholesale price of power?
    Ms. LeBeau. Thank you for the question. It does really vary 
throughout our footprint. We have well over a dozen different 
rates throughout our 15-state footprint.
    And we are, generally, anywhere from 20 to 50 percent lower 
than our counterparts because of the long-standing historic 
investment in our generation fleet and in our transmission 
systems, and because it is at cost.
    Mrs. Napolitano. I would like you to report to the 
Committee on what the prices are, please.
    Ms. LeBeau. Anywhere from $20 per megawatt----
    Mrs. Napolitano. No, in writing. In writing, please.
    Ms. LeBeau. Oh, yes, I will, thank you.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sorry.
    Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes Congressman Webster for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Bentz.
    Mr. Webster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for putting this 
together. I really appreciate it.
    I am sorry, I missed what you said.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Bentz. I am sorry, Chair Westerman. Sorry about that.
    Congressman Webster, you are up.
    Mr. Webster. Great. Yes, pointing is good.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Webster. All right, thank you for hosting this, and it 
is very important.
    Administrator Spinrad, several members of this Committee 
have great concern about NOAA's upcoming rule imposing 
additional speed restrictions on a broad category of vessels. 
And the proposed rule would expand the restriction on vessels 
35 feet and longer, and will expand the Go Slow Zone as far as 
90 miles out in the Atlantic Coast. This rule, if finalized, 
will destroy the recreational fishing industry and create 
massive safety hazards for commercial vessels off the Atlantic 
Coast.
    I remain concerned that NOAA didn't fully consider the 
effect the increased restrictions will have on recreational 
fishing, as well as the downstream industries that rely on it. 
These industries are very significant for my home state of 
Florida, and NOAA has previously acknowledged that the rule 
will impact far more anglers than are impacted by the current 
rule.
    How does NOAA anticipate that these proposed changes, if 
finalized, will impact outdoor recreation industries, 
particularly in our economy which continues to face high 
inflation and high costs?
    Dr. Spinrad. Thank you, Congressman. As I indicated 
earlier, North Atlantic right whales are both an endangered 
species and a marine mammal. So, consequently, our statutory 
authorities under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the 
Endangered Species Act dictate that we take efforts to ensure 
that this endangered population survives, with fewer than 350 
in the population right now.
    We have looked at the economic impacts of the proposed 
rule, and we have found no indication of widespread economic 
harm as a result of the proposed rule.
    I would also point out there has been some discussion about 
impact on the boating community. And, in fact, less than 4 
percent of the boats that would be impacted are going to be 
larger than 35 feet. So, by any measure, the economic analysis 
suggests the impact not to be as draconian as some others have 
said.
    I can also tell you that the specifics on the economic 
analysis are part of the rule that is currently in 
consideration at OIRA. And it is our assumption and perception 
that, done effectively, meaning allowing an adaptive management 
structure such as we have seen in Massachusetts, where, in 
fact, we were able to remove the closed area earlier than 
indicated because we found there were no whales in the area, so 
our ability to manage this and our understanding of the 
economic impact suggests this is the most appropriate way to 
balance economic activities while ensuring our responsibilities 
under MMPA and ESA.
    Mr. Webster. Well, I went to kind of just a display at the 
entrance in the Rayburn Building, and there are many, many 
innovative companies who have developed already-existing 
technology that could be used to track whales and vessels and 
patterns and other things in this issue. These technologies are 
very promising, and provide, I guess, a better solution than 
just what has been proposed in the rule.
    Is NOAA aware of these available technologies?
    Dr. Spinrad. We most certainly are. In fact, we are talking 
with the developers of those technologies.
    I would add on a little bit of a personal note, I spent the 
better part of my early career working for the U.S. Navy, 
trying to find large, dark objects at the surface of the ocean, 
and I assure you none of the technologies that are being put 
forward right now are 100 percent effective in finding whales.
    Mr. Webster. Are you considering at all using some of those 
technologies?
    Dr. Spinrad. Absolutely, and some that are currently in the 
laboratory for new development, as well. The solution, I 
believe, is going to be a combination of technology and policy 
activities such as those we have put forward in the proposed 
rule.
    Mr. Webster. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. Congresswoman Peltola is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Peltola. We are having a thumb war over here to see 
who goes first.
    [Laughter.]
    Mrs. Peltola. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. I 
have three questions for Dr. Spinrad. My first question is 
about the nearly $350 million in disaster funding, which I 
understand is stuck in various stages within NOAA, and are not 
able to proceed because of problems with NOAA's accounting 
software.
    And I just really want to emphasize this ongoing crisis 
that our commercial fishermen are in. They are in a freefall. 
The banks are still expecting their boat payments and mortgages 
and all of their overhead. Meantime, this disaster funding is 
stuck in the mud. And I am wondering if you can give us an idea 
of when the funds will be released, and what is being done to 
make sure that other communities don't face the same kind of 
delay.
    Dr. Spinrad. Yes, thank you for this question, 
Congresswoman, and for your continued emphasis on the need to 
engage in process improvement and have the resources.
    The Fishery Disaster Program is one that we recognize is 
critical for coastal communities, fishing communities at the 
individual and community level. I will tell you that part of 
the issue is that in the last 5 years, we saw 50 disasters, 
declarable disasters. That compares with 21 disasters in the 
previous 5-year period. So, part of this is the volume of 
requests that are coming in.
    As a consequence of Congress' passage of the Fisheries 
Resource Disaster Improvement Act, I can tell you we have 
already halved, cut by 50 percent, the time for processing 
these disaster declarations. That is good news, but not good 
enough.
    So, we are looking at all of the places in the current 
timeline for disaster relief, fishery disaster declarations, 
where we can improve the speed with which we process these. I 
am having this discussion with Secretary Raimondo as we speak. 
I will tell you that we are about to make some announcements 
here very, very shortly that will at least move some of these 
out of the hopper into action. So, we recognize the need to 
expedite it.
    I will also tell you that, as you can tell from my answer, 
this is not necessarily attributable to our implementation of a 
new accounting system. A lot of it is the volume of activity we 
have seen, and a lot of it is the process timeline and the 
steps we have to go through between NMFS, NOAA, Department of 
Commerce, OMB, through the chop chain.
    Mrs. Peltola. Just a follow-up. In my experience, the 
definition of ``coming soon'' in government is a much different 
definition than ``coming soon'' for non-government people. What 
do you mean when you say, ``coming soon''? Like, in a week, in 
a month, in 6 months?
    Dr. Spinrad. The announcements that I was alluding to?
    Mrs. Peltola. Yes.
    Dr. Spinrad. You can expect within days to weeks.
    Mrs. Peltola. OK. And are those announcements in regard to 
Alaska, as well?
    Dr. Spinrad. Yes, ma'am.
    Mrs. Peltola. OK. Thank you.
    My second question is, NOAA recently announced that it 
canceled the 2024 Bering Sea Longline Fisheries Survey. Last 
year, it was the halibut survey that was not performed because 
of a lack of funds. And I am wondering what steps NOAA is 
taking to ensure that the surveys go forward next year.
    Dr. Spinrad. First, I will say we recognize the criticality 
and the value of the data that we get from the surveys. We do 
these particular surveys on a cost recovery basis. And, in 
fact, in this particular case, the vessel operator did incur a 
number of losses due to decreased value of the catch that they 
had.
    We are looking at options associated with how to do this. 
As you know, we have included a $41 million increase for our 
days at sea for our own operations. I would like to see us be 
able to incorporate this, get beyond the implications of having 
a cost recovery effort.
    My commitment to you is to try to define options that work 
better than a cost recovery that is subject to the market 
fluctuations.
    Mrs. Peltola. OK, and we need to do this quickly because, 
if we have zero abundance and there is a horrible price, that 
is no money. And things move very slowly on this side of the 
table, as well. So, time is of the essence.
    My third question, because I am looking at 30 seconds left, 
last year, NOAA began updating the national standards on 3 of 
the 10: abundance, bycatch, and communities. I am most 
concerned that at the North Pacific Fisheries Management 
Council at the AP they are talking about communities being 
factory trawlers with a straight face. They are making 
arguments that factory trawlers are communities versus 
communities that have been in that same location for 12,000 
years based on a relationship with returning salmon that is no 
longer happening.
    A factory trawler is not a village that has been there for 
12,000 years. We have to get some definitions that make sense 
in our national standards, and I am hoping that isn't, like, 
``coming quickly,'' meaning 10 months from now.
    Dr. Spinrad. First of all, I appreciate the concern you 
have expressed. And I think part of the answer is tied to the 
construct of the council. You have alluded to that.
    We have reached out to the governor in Alaska, and said 
that we would like to see nominations be a bit more inclusive 
of the representation that you alluded to. So, I think that is 
part of the solution.
    Mrs. Peltola. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes Chairman Westerman for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Bentz, and thank you to 
the witnesses for being here today.
    Administrator Spinrad and Director Williams, you have both 
put out some rules recently that haven't been finalized yet, 
but are very, very unpopular rules. They also seem to lack 
logic. I have looked at them, tried to have an open mind. I am 
talking about the speed limit rule with NOAA and the BIDEH rule 
with U.S. Fish and Wildlife.
    And I think you know this, but I just want to remind you 
that you have really offended a lot of sportsmen and women 
across the country with these rules. And I would hate to see a 
vote on which one of these rules they dislike the most, because 
they dislike both of them very much. And it is almost like you 
all had a side bet to see who could offend the most people with 
rules that you have made. And I don't think it is your intent 
to alienate sportsmen and women around the country, but that is 
certainly what is happening.
    And just to offer some advice, I would do everything in 
your power to pull these rules back before they become final, 
because these are people all over the country that are going to 
be pushing Republicans and Democrats to stop the rules that you 
are putting in place. And my position will be to try to stop 
that through the authorization and the appropriation process.
    But I don't have time to talk about both of them, so we are 
going to talk about BIDEH, Director Williams. Last month, the 
Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on the Service's 
proposed BIDEH rule. At the hearing, the Service claimed this 
rule is largely consistent with current practices, and then 
later testified that it would look at certain management 
practices ``through a new lens.'' What does the new lens mean?
    Ms. Williams. Mr. Chair, thank you for the question, and I 
appreciate it. I listened intently to the BIDEH hearing.
    What I would like to say about BIDEH is that I have pored 
through the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, 
the statute that authorizes the refuge system and guides its 
management, in its language says that it is the charge of the 
Secretary to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, 
and environmental health of the system are maintained for the 
present and future generations.
    So, I would like to say that we have had the requirement of 
the biological integrity, environmental health of the refuge 
system in place. We have also had policies in place. This 
rulemaking is meant to reinforce that requirement from the 
Refuge Act.
    Where I think there has been a misunderstanding, and I will 
absolutely acknowledge it and recognize that our sportsmen and 
women across the country are very important constituents to the 
Fish and Wildlife Service, are important to the health of the 
refuge system. I think that some of the misunderstanding and 
the distrust from the rule coming out was the way in which it 
was couched, ``prohibited unless,'' and that came from the way 
the National Wildlife Refuge System Act is written that starts 
with refuges being closed unless opened.
    We extended our comment period. We understand there are 
many comments to go through.
    Mr. Westerman. I am going to have to----
    Ms. Williams. And I want to address them to clarify.
    Mr. Westerman. Right. The message that the public is 
getting is that Fish and Wildlife doesn't want to manage fish 
and wildlife refuges for fish and wildlife anymore, that they 
want to make them another little sanctuary, where people maybe 
can go in and bird watch or something. But not being able to do 
agriculture practices on these fish and wildlife refuges is 
definitely going to hurt wildlife habitat.
    During our hearing, the Service also claimed that this rule 
would not ban the use of important management practices. 
However, the plain language tells a different story and 
supporters such as the Humane Society have lauded the proposal 
because it would ``ban the use of predator control measures 
throughout the National Wildlife Refuge System.'' So, who is 
correct here?
    Ms. Williams. Mr. Chair and Congressman Westerman, the 
agricultural practices and predator management that support the 
purpose for which the refuge was created can continue. The 
BIDEH rule does not get rid of those agricultural practices or 
predator control practices.
    Mr. Westerman. Well, your friends at the Humane Society are 
touting that it gets rid of predator control.
    Administrator Wech, I have a question for you. I will just 
submit it to the record. It has to do with the Narrows Dam in 
my district and what is taking so long to get the trash gates 
fixed on it.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. Ranking Member Huffman, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Spinrad, I believe you did the right thing by moving 
forward, as you said, with alacrity to begin protecting the 
North Atlantic right whale in the face of an imminent 
extinction threat. I know it has been suggested that we should 
just continue endless dialogue. Of course, we all want to see 
new technology and other things that could help us, but you 
took action.
    And you are a science agency. What do the scientists tell 
you that we can afford to lose each year when it comes to the 
North Atlantic right whale population, if we are going to keep 
them from going extinct?
    Dr. Spinrad. Well, the scientists and, I would also point 
out, the judicial system has indicated we cannot afford to lose 
one, much less, say, a reproductive female, of which there are 
only 70.
    Mr. Huffman. And we are losing more than one to ship 
strikes.
    Dr. Spinrad. We are. As I indicated, this year we have 
already had at least three deaths attributable to ship strikes 
because one of those was a female who we knew had a calf 
associated with her, and we haven't been able to find the calf. 
I should point out we can only account for 36 percent of those 
that are killed.
    Mr. Huffman. The ones we count, right.
    Dr. Spinrad. Yes.
    Mr. Huffman. You did the right thing.
    Moving on to the Rice's whale, there is a suggestion that 
you should have focused singularly, I suppose, on some acoustic 
surveys that show no Rice's whales in the area proposed for 
critical habitat. But you have some other evidence that you 
didn't get to talk about because you were cut off. Tell us a 
little more about the aerial surveys.
    And I understand there are also some anecdotal accounts 
from fishermen recently in the area you are proposing for 
critical habitat.
    Dr. Spinrad. Yes. Thank you, Ranking Member Huffman.
    First of all, I would say there is an old credo within the 
scientific community that the absence of evidence is not the 
evidence of absence.
    [Slide.]
    Dr. Spinrad. That was confirmed, in fact, in the image that 
I tried to share is this one, which was just taken by some of 
our scientists last month. It is an aerial survey. It is one of 
two Rice's whales that were detected in the area that is 
currently under consideration as critical habitat.
    So, between that and, as you indicated, some of the 
anecdotal observations by those who fish and navigate in those 
waters, we know they are resident there.
    Mr. Huffman. I appreciate that. You talked a little bit 
about some of the funding from the IRA that has enabled you to 
do a lot of good work in the last couple of years: climate-
ready fisheries, resilient coastal communities, safeguards 
against climate and weather impacts, tribal fish hatcheries. I 
understand some of the red snapper research, even, that you 
were praised for earlier benefited from some of that IRA 
funding. And if I heard you correctly, the demand for this 
programmatic funding is 28 times what we have been able to push 
out the door. Did I hear you right?
    Dr. Spinrad. That is absolutely right, and that is for a 
large chunk of those resources, almost $600 million for what we 
are calling Climate Resilience Regional Challenge. These will 
typically be investments of, say, $10 million, maybe as high as 
$50 million. So, you have a sense of, at $16 billion, what the 
nation, what the communities, industries, individuals around 
the country are asking for.
    Mr. Huffman. All right. So, the idea that this funding was 
not doing critically important, beneficial work would not be 
right. And I think that is important when we consider the fact 
that Chairman Westerman's proposed wildlife bill, the Wildlife 
Habitat and Conservation Act, his version of RAWA, if you will, 
would actually strip that funding back by $700 million, I 
guess, in the name of protecting wildlife. It seems to make no 
sense to me.
    Commissioner Touton, I want to ask you about a recent LA 
Times report on illegal water theft from the Bureau of 
Reclamation. I know you are familiar with this, the Panoche 
Water District in California stole water over two decades. It 
was sold for more than $25 million. This is, obviously, an 
outrage for taxpayers and for other water users who have 
struggled during difficult water years.
    The Bureau is charged with allocating these scarce water 
resources, and also ensuring adequate stream flows and making 
the other tough calls to manage water. It is hard for me to 
imagine that the Panoche Water District is the only one of the 
dozens and dozens of Federal contractors that are plugged into 
the system that have done this.
    Can you tell me what you are doing to get your arms around 
this problem, to understand the scope of it, and to make sure 
that illegal diversions stop, and that we don't continue to 
allow this to happen right under our nose?
    And I am interested to know how the heck it did happen for 
over two decades under this agency's watch.
    Ms. Touton. Thank you for that question, Ranking Member.
    When we look at our ability, this is key to our mission, 
right, knowing where this water is going, and it showed that 
there was a significant gap in our monitoring. So, one of the 
things we are immediately doing now is utilizing BIL and IRA 
funding to increase our monitoring. The other tool is fines. As 
you alluded to, we fine them. But a key part of this is working 
with the state of California for enforcement.
    Mr. Huffman. All right, thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Bentz. Congressman Carl, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Carl. Thank you, Chairman. I would like to apologize to 
my colleagues on this board. I am beginning to think like 
Garret Graves, and all of my questions are exactly what Garret 
asked. So, I have to make this up as we go along. Thinking like 
Garret is scary, especially being from Alabama.
    Roll Tide, just for Garret's purpose.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Carl. Mr. Spinrad, help me fill in some blanks here. 
How much did you say we were budgeting for the Rice's whale 
study? In your opening statement you said billions?
    Dr. Spinrad. No, it was certainly not billions. I would 
have to get back to you with the exact number.
    Mr. Carl. Well, you have it in your notes right there. And 
while you are looking, how many strikes did you say we had last 
year?
    Dr. Spinrad. On Rice's whale or North Atlantic right 
whales?
    Mr. Carl. Well, let's just take Rice's whale for the 
moment.
    Dr. Spinrad. I don't have records of any strikes on Rice's 
whales.
    Mr. Carl. No strikes in the Gulf.
    Dr. Spinrad. Which is why, of course, we are not putting a 
rulemaking in place for vessel strike rule on Rice's whale.
    Mr. Carl. So, how many have we killed in the Gulf?
    Dr. Spinrad. Rice's whale, I am not aware of any 
mortalities.
    Mr. Carl. So, no mortalities in the Gulf. You are talking 
about just the East Coast. So, you are talking about primarily 
the Bryde's whale. The Bryde's whale, correct?
    Dr. Spinrad. Rice's whale.
    Mr. Carl. Bryde's?
    Dr. Spinrad. Rice's whale.
    Mr. Carl. OK. Your picture right there, is that a Bryde's 
or a Rice's?
    Dr. Spinrad. That is a Rice's whale.
    Mr. Carl. How do you tell the difference?
    Dr. Spinrad. I can't, but our experts can. We have experts.
    Mr. Carl. Do you know how they tell the difference?
    Dr. Spinrad. They look at fluke markings. They look at 
size, they look at shape. They look at the same things you 
would use to identify basically any other marine mammal.
    Mr. Carl. According to what I read, they crack the skull 
open, and that is how they figure it out.
    Dr. Spinrad. No, not for these. These were aerial surveys, 
sir, that were done without any harassment or impact on the 
animal.
    Mr. Carl. All right. What I am saying is you have to crack 
the skull open to actually tell the difference between a 
Bryde's and a Rice's. You are trying to talk about two 
different whales. I don't think we are talking about two 
different whales.
    So, the East Coast whale, well, let's call it the East 
Coast whale. Have we done any studies on these windmills to see 
how it affects these whales?
    Dr. Spinrad. We have looked at the acoustic signatures of 
the operations to put the wind turbines in the water, and we 
find no conclusive evidence of harassment, as defined by the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act, on the whales.
    Mr. Carl. I mean, a fish that does all of its hunting and 
traveling based on acoustics, I don't see how that is possible. 
That is common sense. Obviously, I am not a scientist.
    So, these three that were killed in the East Coast, these 
are----
    Dr. Spinrad. Right.
    Mr. Carl. How many of those were dead strikes before they 
hit them? Do we know if the ship actually killed them, or were 
they dead, floating fish that they hit?
    Dr. Spinrad. Well, they were obviously struck, and the 
nature of the damage----
    Mr. Carl. Well, that is obvious. They wouldn't be on the 
ship. But were they dead when they were hit?
    Dr. Spinrad. No, it is obvious on the whale.
    Mr. Carl. OK, I get that. But were they dead when they were 
hit? Were they a floating fish when they were hit?
    Dr. Spinrad. Were they floating when they were hit?
    Mr. Carl. Do you know?
    Dr. Spinrad. I cannot answer that. We were not present to 
see----
    Mr. Carl. OK. So, we don't know if they were dead already 
from something else, and the ships had picked them up.
    Dr. Spinrad. The chances of that are pretty slim, based on 
the necropsies which indicate roughly time of death and where 
they were at the time.
    Mr. Carl. OK, in the Gulf we are very concerned about this. 
And you show us pictures. Early on in this conversation, there 
were no pictures. You show us pictures. I find no reason to 
think you would be lying to us. OK, great. We have whales.
    I have talked to an extensive amount of people that fish in 
the Gulf. No one has ever seen them. All the charters have 
never seen them. Now, that doesn't mean they don't exist, but 
the idea of trying to shut down traffic in that Gulf is going 
to affect me and my district tremendously, because we are a 
port city. And from a defense standpoint, we are working on 
naval ships, we are working on Coast Guard ships. We have oil 
platforms and gas, and so many things are going to depend on 
the moving of these ships in and out of the Gulf.
    Please take into consideration who you are going to affect 
and what it is going to affect, because we have a 13 percent 
favorable rating in Congress. I promise you, in my district you 
have less. And those are the people that pay the bills. And 
when they turn on us, there is no stopping. We get blamed for 
everything that you do now, whether it is the fish count or 
whether it is talking about controlling the speed of their 
boat. But we have way too much government involved here.
    I am like Westerman. I think we should look at the 
appropriations side. I think your Department is drunk on money, 
I think you are drunk on power, and I think we have to wheel it 
back.
    With that, I yield my time back.
    Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes Congresswoman Hoyle for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Huffman. Mr. Chairman, could I briefly just request 
unanimous consent that Representative Kim Schrier of Washington 
be permitted to sit at the dais and participate in the hearing?
    Mr. Bentz. Without objection.
    Mr. Huffman. Thank you.
    Ms. Hoyle. Thank you. My question is for Administrator 
Spinrad.
    First of all, an aside, I know that the NOAA weather 
stations aren't part of this Committee's jurisdiction, but I 
would like to point out that you have a weather station in 
Portland, you have one in Medford. The Mid-Willamette Valley 
isn't covered, and we just had a devastating ice storm, and 
have a completely different weather system. So, we would love 
to work with you on making sure we cover that.
    But a major focus of your Fiscal Year 2025 budget is NOAA's 
climate resilient portfolio and the investments necessary to 
provide those services. And we can argue about how we got here, 
but we have seen a lot of extreme climate events.
    The Oregon coast relies on NOAA's high-quality science and 
data. NOAA needs people, ships, satellites, and airplanes to 
make that all happen. The city of Newport hosts many NOAA staff 
with collaboration with Oregon State University--go, Beavers--
and I know you are familiar with this site. The state-of-the-
art research facilities in Newport are an economic boost to 
that community, and important to the entire coast and, I would 
say, to the entire country.
    Unfortunately, the proposed Fiscal Year 2025 budget cuts to 
ocean research could have real impacts on NOAA's work in Oregon 
for ocean health. And, again, that research helps the entire 
country, and it impacts our commercial and sports fishing 
industries which are a critical part of our economy, as they 
rely on that data.
    Could you talk about some of the ways that NOAA science is 
used in the Pacific Northwest, and what are you most worried 
about? Like, what should we most worry about if NOAA is not 
fully funded?
    Dr. Spinrad. Thank you for that question, and thank you for 
your comments about the work that we do out of Newport, and 
your support for those activities, as well.
    In effect, NOAA's activities in the oceans take three 
flavors. One is fundamental research relevant to our mission. 
So, understanding, for example, how ocean conditions are 
changing. Is the ocean becoming more acidic? The second 
category would be our fisheries surveys and assessments of the 
biology of the ocean, if you will, for our responsibilities for 
fisheries management and ecosystem management. And the third is 
what we call our hydrographic charting. That is the mapping. If 
you are a boater, you use a navigational chart that comes from 
NOAA.
    So, those are the basic categories of investment. And I 
would point out we conduct those kinds of activities with 
different kinds of vessels operating out of ports like Newport.
    Ms. Hoyle. OK. Thank you. And, again, I very much 
appreciate your work. I would love to talk to you at another 
time on how we can manage to get weather station and tracking 
in the Mid-Willamette Valley.
    I yield the rest of my time.
    Mr. Bentz. Congressman LaMalfa, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Commissioner Touton, it is good to have you here today, as 
well as the rest of our panel. Let me direct this to you, going 
back to the Klamath River and the water shortages up there.
    With the process of the dams being destroyed, Reclamation 
will not have the ability to borrow water from those reservoirs 
and do the water swapping that had been possible in the past 
with the lake, with the reservoirs, and for flow purposes. So, 
as you develop the new operations plan for the project, what do 
you intend to look at for the water borrowing to replace that 
if the dams are all destroyed?
    Ms. Touton. First, Congressman LaMalfa, I just very much 
appreciate our continued dialogue here at the hearing, but also 
on all things easy but also hard.
    When we look at the Klamath Project and our flexibility, 
first we need to be able to improve our modeling and forecasts 
so that the allocations are as sound as they possibly can be. 
We are also looking at Inflation Reduction Act funding for the 
Klamath Basin to be able to see what improvements we can make 
on infrastructure from our other basin funding.
    Mr. LaMalfa. So, what my concern is, is that without that 
flexibility, as a new plan is developed for operations, then 
that means the only place they can really look is either take 
the water from the lake, which they don't want to do, or take 
it from agriculture, which has been done a lot lately.
    Can you somehow promise to me that the solution won't be 
just buying out or taking water from agriculture as an 
additional long-term solution?
    Ms. Touton. I think what I can commit to you, Congressman, 
is that we have to be able to look at a better way to operate 
the system so that there is reliability for our agricultural 
communities to continue to farm, as well as meeting our 
requirements for the ecosystem. And we have to find a path 
forward, and not just have one-off IOPs every year. And I think 
we are working toward that path.
    Mr. LaMalfa. OK. It is my understanding you are not 
necessarily a biologist yourself.
    Ms. Touton. I am an engineer, Congressman.
    Mr. LaMalfa. So, the interim operation plan that you have 
been forced to use the last few years, let me rapid-fire these 
real quickly since we have limited time. Does the interim 
operating plan adjust the water temperature required for fish 
downstream of Lake Shasta, based on how good or bad the water 
year is? Are you allowed to adjust that temperature goal?
    Ms. Touton. Are we looking at the Central Valley Project, 
Congressman?
    Mr. LaMalfa. Yes.
    Ms. Touton. So, in our operations plan there are thresholds 
of temperatures that we are looking to use. But more 
importantly, like Klamath in the Central Valley Project, we are 
looking to have a longer operations instead of again operating 
on 1-year ops every year.
    Mr. LaMalfa. OK. So, there is a level of flexibility, I am 
gathering. Does IOP adjust the cold pool water that is to be 
maintained behind the lake based on how good or bad the water 
is?
    Ms. Touton. Again, as part of the IOP, and this is 
something that we coordinate with Fish and NMFS, depending on 
what water year it is also helps to identify the cold water 
pool that is needed, and helps to lock in the operations for 
the water year.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Well, my understanding is that it does depend 
on how good or bad the pool level is.
    Ms. Touton. Yes, that is right.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Does it adjust the amount of delta outflow 
based on population numbers of the fish in a water year?
    Ms. Touton. I don't know that one, specifically, 
Congressman. I can follow up for the record.
    Mr. LaMalfa. OK. Does the IOP require a certain amount of 
water carry over, based on a water year in the lake?
    Ms. Touton. Within the IOP, there are targets in which we 
end the water year for specific storage, including within 
Shasta.
    Mr. LaMalfa. OK. So, better water years typically result in 
better fish runs is a pretty safe conclusion, I would say.
    Is there an ability to have the amount of take be 
adjustable based on the water year, the amount of fish take, 
whether we are talking salmon-type, et cetera?
    Ms. Touton. I think there are a lot of factors in that. I 
would defer to my colleagues with the Fish and Wildlife 
Service.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Well, I am going to have to answer it for you, 
because our experience on it is it is a hard number, and we 
have seen that in the Delta as we were trying to operate the 
pumps this year. Last year, we were able to fill San Luis 
Reservoir 100 percent. This year, there was a vast amount, like 
95 percent, of cut-down in running the pumps, based on the idea 
of a hard take number.
    And the fish that were taken there were in a high 
population year, a successful run of fish, of steelhead. Yet, 
they are not distinguishing between steelhead and raised 
rainbow. So, what we are getting is a distorted number of the 
types of fish being lumped into one, and they are not even 
marking the hatchery fish.
    So, the fish that are rescued in their facility there and 
put back into the system are still counted as take, so we have 
an artificially high, a fake high number of take of fish that 
weren't actually taken and are of two different species being 
counted as one. So, that would be very problematic, because we 
didn't get to run the pumps this year, and we left half a 
million acre-feet out of San Luis Reservoir based on false data 
of what the fish take was having reached the level of take.
    I have to stop there, and I wish there was more time.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes Mr. Mullin for 5 minutes, 
and then we will break for voting.
    Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know we have votes 
looming.
    Thank you all for your testimony. My question is for Dr. 
Spinrad.
    Your agency in particular provides critical information 
about changes in climate, weather, and oceans. In this year's 
budget request, your agency has asked to reduce funding from 
programs such as NOAA research, while boosting funding for 
National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service. 
Amidst these shifts, how is NOAA ensuring that fundamental 
questions about climate risk continue to be answered?
    And how are you making sure that this information is 
available to leaders at state and local levels to inform 
decision-making?
    Dr. Spinrad. Thank you for your question focusing on what I 
would argue is one of our most important mission 
responsibilities, and that is giving American industry, 
individuals, communities what I call the environmental 
intelligence to make decisions, which means we have to sustain 
our ability to deliver in an operational way climate-related 
information.
    We are going to do that by sustaining activities like the 
Climate Resilience Information Toolkit, the Climate Mapping for 
Resilience and Adaptation tools so your constituents can go 
look at a census tract level and determine are we going to see 
a tendency towards more heat days in the summers to come? Are 
we going to see more precipitation, more drought? Those tools 
will continue to be delivered.
    Unfortunately, because of some of the cuts that we had to 
take associated with the Fiscal Responsibility Act, we have to 
diminish some of our investment and the research that supports 
those. But I am confident in the years to come we will be able 
to embellish that part of it, as well.
    Mr. Mullin. Thank you for that. And then, finally, Director 
Williams, the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge is in my 
district. We received $2 million out of the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law for ecosystem restoration and climate change 
resilience projects. But funding for the refuge system has been 
nearly stagnant since 2010.
    So, under these budget constraints, can you just tell me 
about the regulatory efforts by Fish and Wildlife to protect 
the biological integrity of the national wildlife refuge 
ecosystems amidst the threats from climate change? If you 
could, just speak to that.
    Ms. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, Congressman 
Mullin, I know that the Secretary really very much appreciated 
getting to visit with you and go to the Don Edwards San 
Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. And I think that visit 
highlighted, as you say, just what the Fish and Wildlife 
Service is able to do when we have had the investment from the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and it has allowed us to do 
ecosystem restoration projects like the one you mentioned, in 
light of climate change, in making that area more resilient. It 
helps with water quality, it helps with flooding, it helps with 
access for those who live in San Francisco to get out to this 
refuge.
    And then, of course, it helps with the species, whether 
they are migrating through or that are resident species, 
plants, birds, and amphibians alike. So, I think that is an 
example of just what we can do when we have the investment.
    Unfortunately, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the refuge 
system, as I testified earlier, our budget has been stretched 
so far I worry about it snapping. We have had to complex 
refuges. We don't have an employee on every refuge. I believe 
there are seven or eight states where we don't even have a 
Federal wildlife officer, and those officers respond to 
emergencies, they help with the safety of our visitors. Many of 
our visitor centers are run wholly by volunteers. Almost all of 
them are on limited hours of operation. Some of them don't have 
a staff person to even oversee the volunteers. And it goes on 
and on.
    So, here is a gem of a system of public lands for people to 
hunt, fish, recreate, and enjoy, and also established to be 
this connected network. And our proposed rulemaking, our 
comment period just ended, is intended to allow us to do just 
that, and that is to focus on that connected network, 
biological integrity, ecological health of those refuges, and 
allow people to use them and enjoy them.
    So, thank you for asking the question.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you. Here is what we are going to do. 
Congresswoman Hageman is going to take over as Chair. I am 
leaving to go vote. I am not sure about everybody else. We will 
come back. She will complete her 5 minutes of questions, and 
then she will go to vote, and we will go into recess, and then 
be back here after votes, but roughly at about 5.
    Ms. Hageman [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Director Williams, on March 30 of this year, the state of 
Wyoming filed a petition for judicial review in the Wyoming 
District Court that alleges that the Department of the Interior 
has failed to meet the 12-month deadline for determining 
Wyoming's petition to delist the grizzly bear population in the 
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Wyoming's petition to delist was 
submitted in January 2022. It has now been 2\1/2\ years. And it 
was submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requesting 
the agency to delist the GYE grizzly bear. This request came 
after the population was determined to be sufficiently 
recovered in the Yellowstone Ecosystem under the Endangered 
Species Act.
    I spoke to you about this a year ago, and you emphasized 
that the Service needed to complete its scientific review, 
which was supposed to be done within a 12-month period. Here we 
are, one year later, and you have had plenty of time to finish 
the review, but we haven't heard from you yet. Director 
Williams, when will we see this review?
    Ms. Williams. Congressman Hageman, I do not have a specific 
date for the review. We are working diligently on this.
    Ms. Hageman. Why is it taking so long?
    Ms. Williams. It is taking long because, as you have noted, 
under the Endangered Species Act, in determining whether to 
list or delist a species, there is a five-factor analysis.
    Ms. Hageman. Well, I understand the five factors. I am very 
familiar with the five factors. In fact, that is part of what 
my confusion is, because the Greater Yellowstone grizzly 
population has been fully recovered for over two decades. And, 
in fact, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service, we have 
more than double the number of grizzly bears that are 
considered a recovered grizzly bear population.
    And Wyoming's management plan has already been determined 
to be an adequate regulatory mechanism for protecting a 
recovered species. So, again, I am still confused as to why 
2\1/2\ years later, after our petition was filed, we still do 
not have that review finalized.
    Ms. Williams. Congresswoman Hageman, that determination, as 
you know, numbers are very important.
    Ms. Hageman. By the statute you have 12 months, right? You 
have 12 months to finish the review, correct?
    Ms. Williams. That is correct.
    Ms. Hageman. And you have exceeded that by 2\1/2\ times, 
correct?
    Ms. Williams. That is correct.
    Ms. Hageman. When will we see that review? What will you 
commit to here today?
    Ms. Williams. I will commit to continuing to work on that 
review expeditiously, Congresswoman Hageman.
    Ms. Hageman. How much longer do you think you are going to 
need?
    Ms. Williams. There are a number of other litigation and 
activities before the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding 
grizzly bears, including a petition, actually, a litigation and 
proposed settlement from Idaho.
    Ms. Hageman. After this hearing, could you provide me with 
a response, an actual response of when you estimate to have 
that review finalized? Will you provide that information in 
writing?
    Ms. Williams. Yes, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you.
    Administrator Spinrad, I want to ask you about a couple of 
letters that have been sent to you, one by Mike Lee on March 12 
of this year and another one by me on April 19, that highlight 
NOAA's use of the Billions Project data set, which tracks the 
information related to climate and natural disasters that 
allegedly resulted in at least $1 billion in damages since 
1980. Have you reviewed either of those letters?
    Dr. Spinrad. We are reviewing those letters.
    Ms. Hageman. Have you personally reviewed either of those 
letters?
    Dr. Spinrad. I have read the letters, and my staff is 
working with me to provide responses.
    Ms. Hageman. When do you think you will have responses to 
those letters?
    Dr. Spinrad. I can't give you a specific date.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. Mr. Spinrad, as you know, the data used to 
monitor the billion-dollar disasters does not distinguish 
between climate and weather-related disasters and other 
disaster losses. In fact, the Billions Project does not utilize 
climate data at all, it simply highlights losses from disasters 
that allegedly caused over $1 billion in economic impact and 
damages.
    NOAA has reportedly failed to disclose its method for 
calculating disaster loss, as well as information pertaining to 
sources it uses to calculate losses related to climate change 
and using the Billions Project data.
    On NOAA's Frequently Asked Questions page about the 
Billions Project, it claims that it uses ``more than one dozen 
public and private-sector data sources to help capture the 
total direct costs, both insured and uninsured, of the weather 
and climate events.'' But the project does not identify these 
sources in relation to specific events. I want to make sure 
that we receive responses to our letters so that we can 
actually understand from NOAA what the data set is that you are 
using.
    Does NOAA have its own method of calculating disaster 
losses?
    Dr. Spinrad. Yes, we look at the information that we get 
from the communities. We use our reassessments that we do after 
every weather event as part of that data set.
    Ms. Hageman. And you will provide that in response to my 
letter?
    Dr. Spinrad. We will, yes.
    Ms. Hageman. With unanimous consent, I would like to submit 
two documents for the record. One is a Protect the Public's 
Trust request for an investigation into apparent scientific 
integrity violations related to NOAA's billion-dollar disaster 
project, and the second one is Corrupted Climate Stations, 
which documents that 96 percent of the data that is being used 
by NOAA to calculate its so-called climate change and global 
warming are corrupted. I would like to submit both of those for 
the record.

    [The information follows:]

                       PROTECT the PUBLIC'S TRUST

                                                  April 3, 2024    

Roderick Anderson, Acting Inspector General
U.S. Department of Commerce
1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20230

Dr. Cynthia J. Decker, Science Integrity Officer
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--Science Council
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910

Re: Request for Investigation into Apparent Scientific Integrity 
        Violations Related to NOAA's ``Billion Dollar Disaster'' 
        Project

    Dear Mr. Anderson and Dr. Decker:

    The American people deserve a government that meets the highest 
standards of conduct and integrity, particularly when it comes to the 
government's handling of priority issues like climate change. That is 
why it is so concerning that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (``NOAA'') appears to have run the Billion-Dollar 
Weather and Climate Disasters tracking project (the ``Billions 
Project'' or the ``Project'') in a manner that violates fundamental 
principles of scientific integrity.
    Protect the Public's Trust (PPT) is a nonpartisan organization 
dedicated to promoting ethics in government and restoring the public's 
trust in government officials. Sensational climate claims made without 
proper scientific basis and spread by government officials threaten the 
public's trust in its scientific officials and undermines the 
government's mission of stewarding the environment. It also poses the 
danger of policymakers basing consequential government policy on 
unscientific claims unsupported by evidence. For this reason, PPT 
requests that you investigate the apparent scientific integrity 
violations of NOAA's Billions Project and its misleading and inaccurate 
claims about the Project's dataset.
Background

    The Billions Project is a tally of weather and climate disasters 
since 1980 that resulted in $1 billion or more in losses.\1\ The 
Project has had a big impact: it was highlighted by the U.S. 
government's U.S. Global Change Research Program as a ``climate change 
indicator,'' \2\ and was cited as evidence that ``extreme events are 
becoming more frequent and severe'' in the Fifth U.S. National Climate 
Assessment.\3\ The dataset's influence and reach is vast. Per Google 
scholar, it has been cited in almost 1,000 articles.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) 
U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters (2024). https://
www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/.
    \2\ Human Consequences of Climate Change, USDA Forest Service 
Office of Sustainability and Climate and the Environmental Protection 
Agency (March 30, 2023), https://storymaps. arcgis.com/collections/
ad628a4d3e7e4460b089d9fe96b2475d?item=6.
    \3\ Fifth National Climate Assessment: Climate Trends, U.S. Global 
Change Research Program (November 2023), https://
nca2023.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/.
    \4\ https://scholar.google.com/
scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C6&q=%22billion+dollar+disasters%22 &btnG=.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Though cited as evidence of climate change effects, the Billions 
Project does not utilize climate data. The Project's dataset only 
collects and reports economic data about disaster losses. Because of 
this, it cannot distinguish the effect of climate change as a factor on 
disaster losses from the effect of human factors like increases in the 
vulnerability and exposure of people and wealth to disaster damages due 
to population and economic growth.
    The Project's statistical practices have raised criticism that they 
lead to inaccurate reporting on disaster events since the Project's 
beginning. For example, while the Project adjusted the dollar amount of 
damages for events in the database for inflation, it only included 
events that crossed the billion-dollar threshold in the year they 
occurred.5,6 This resulted in an apples-to-oranges 
comparison over time, as inflation effectively lowered the threshold 
for initial inclusion in the database over time. NOAA corrected this 
issue in 2012 and warned ``[c]aution should be used in interpreting any 
trends based on this graphic for a variety of reasons.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Jason Samenow, 2011 billion dollar weather disaster record: 
legit or bad economics, The Washington Post (Jan. 12, 2012), https://
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/2011-billion-
dollar-weather-disaster-record-legit-or-bad-economics/2012/01/12/
gIQADocztP_ blog.html.
    \6\ Roger Pielke, Jr., Everything You Hear About Billion-Dollar 
Disasters Is Wrong, Forbes (Nov. 7, 2019), https://www.forbes.com/
sites/rogerpielke/2019/11/07/everything-you-hear-about-billion-dollar-
disasters-is-wrong/?sh=5f74db052fea.
    \7\ Pielke, supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since that time, the Project has continued to engage in statistical 
practices that appear to lead to inaccurate reporting on disaster 
events, such as using undisclosed calculation methodologies for 
determining losses from individual disaster events that result in 
drastically higher loss estimates than those reported by other 
institutions at NOAA.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ See infra at 7 (comparison of the Billions Project's estimate 
of losses from Hurricane Idalia to the National Hurricane Center's 
estimate of losses).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, the Project's dataset itself is beset by numerous 
violations of the scientific integrity standards set by NOAA and the 
Biden Administration.

The Scientific Integrity Policies Regulating the Billions Project

NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policies
    NOAA maintains strict and far-reaching scientific integrity 
policies to ensure it upholds the highest standards of quality in its 
scientific research and publications. The primary source of NOAA's 
scientific integrity policies is NOAA Administrative Order 202-735D.3 
(the ``SI Order''), which went into effect on March 1, 2024.\9\ NOAA's 
stated intent behind the SI Order is ``to strengthen universal 
confidence--from scientists to decision-makers to the general public--
in the quality, validity, and reliability of NOAA science.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ NAO 202-735D-3: Scientific Integrity, NOAA (Mar. 1, 2024), 
https://www.noaa.gov/organization/administration/nao-202-735d-2-
scientific-integrity.
    \10\ SI Order at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The SI Order applies broadly within NOAA. Section 2.01(a) of the SI 
Order applies its scientific integrity policies to ``[a]ll NOAA 
employees, political and career . . . who engage in, supervise, or 
manage scientific activities, analyze and/or publicly communicate 
information resulting from scientific activities, or use scientific 
information or analyses in making bureau or office policy, management, 
or regulatory decisions, unless excepted under a collective bargaining 
agreement.'' \11\ Under this far reaching definition, the NOAA staff 
that produce, maintain, and communicate with the public about the 
Billions Project are covered by the SI Order's policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Id.

    The SI Order's definition of forbidden ``Scientific and Research 
Misconduct'' is sweeping and total: \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Id. at 7.

        Scientific and Research Misconduct--Scientific misconduct is a 
        significant departure from the Code of Scientific Conduct or 
        the Code of Ethics for Supervisors and Managers and may be 
        committed intentionally, knowingly or recklessly. This type of 
        misconduct includes, but is not limited to, fabrication, 
        falsification, plagiarism and interference. Research misconduct 
        is fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, 
        performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research 
        results. Research misconduct does not include honest error or 
        differences of opinion, and may be committed intentionally, 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        knowingly or recklessly.

    Similarly, the SI Order forbids the ``Suppression of Science,'' 
which it defines in relevant part as the ``deliberate . . . 
[d]istorting or selective releasing of scientific analysis, assessment, 
research, product, or data for public communication.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Id. at 8.

    The SI Order defines ``Scientific Integrity'' as adherence to a 
core set of professional values that insulate science from scientific 
misconduct: \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Id. at 7.

        Scientific Integrity--Scientific integrity is the adherence to 
        professional practices, ethical behavior, and the principles of 
        honesty and objectivity when conducting, managing, using the 
        results of, and communicating about science and scientific 
        activities. Inclusivity, transparency, and protection from 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        inappropriate influence are hallmarks of scientific integrity.

    As used in these definitions, and throughout the SI Order, the 
terms ``falsification'' and ``fabrication'' have particular 
definitions: \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Id. at 4.

        Falsification--Manipulatingresearch materials, equipment, or 
        processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that 
        the research is not accurately represented in the research 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        record.

        Fabrication--Making up data or scientific results and recording 
        or reporting them.

    In addition to these standards of honesty, the SI Order's 
Principles of Scientific Integrity require adherence to standards for 
ensuring NOAA's scientific and research products can be reviewed and 
their methodologies analyzed.\16\ These standards are ``transparency'' 
and ``traceability:'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Id. at 9.
    \17\ Id. at 8.

        Transparency--Transparency of scientific integrity should guide 
        scientists to give visibility to their data and to describe 
        their analyses, methods and how to interpret their results in 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ways that allow others to assess them.

        Transparency ensures that all relevant data and information 
        used to inform a decision made or action taken is visible, 
        accessible,--and consumable by affected or interested parties, 
        to the extent allowable by law. This includes, to the extent 
        possible, providing the information necessary to interpret 
        artificial intelligence and machine learning methodologies when 
        used.

        Traceability--The ability to verify sources, data, information, 
        methodology, results, and assessments, research, analysis, 
        conclusions or other evidence to establish the integrity of 
        findings.

    The SI Order's Principles of Scientific Integrity further promote 
scientific openness by encouraging all covered individuals who ``engage 
in science and the development of scientific products . . . to publish 
data and findings in transparent ways that enhance NOAA's reputation 
for reliable science,'' including by ``communicating what is known 
about the provenance, validity, and accuracy of ail data as well as the 
process of creating the data.'' \18\ The SI Order's definition of 
``scientific products'' is broad and encompasses communications about 
scientific research, like the Billions Project: \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Id. at 10.
    \19\ Id. at 8.

        Scientific Product--The results of scientific activities 
        including the analysis, synthesis, compilation, or translation 
        of scientific information and data into electronic and hardcopy 
        formats for the use of NOAA, the Department of Commerce, or the 
        Nation. These products include, but are not limited to, 
        experimental and operational models, forecasts, graphics, and 
        verbal and written communications of all kinds relating to 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        scientific activities, including NOAA social media accounts.

    Additionally, the SI Order's Code of Scientific Conduct requires 
NOAA staff and partners to be ``[a]ccountable in conducting research 
and interpretation of research results'' by ``[d]isclos[ing] all 
research methods used, available data, and final reports and 
publications consistent with applicable scientific standards, laws, and 
policy.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Id. at 17.

    NOAA's commitment to these principles is demonstrated by how 
seriously it takes potential scientific integrity violations. The SI 
Order's Policy on Scientific Integrity strictly prohibits them and 
requires thorough investigation when they have been alleged: \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Id. at 8-9.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is NOAA policy that:

        .01 Research and Scientific Misconduct by any covered 
        individual are prohibited.

        . . .

        .02 All covered individuals comply with the requirements of, 
        and adhere to, the principles of scientific integrity, 
        integrity of science activities, Code of Scientific Conduct and 
        Code of Ethics for Science Supervision and Management described 
        in this NAO when performing their duties within and outside of 
        NOAA.

        . . .

        .04 Under no circumstance may any covered individuals ask or 
        direct Federal scientists or other NOAA employees to suppress 
        or alter, or delay scientific data, findings, analysis, 
        assessments, or research, including how they are used in 
        communications of all kinds, both public and internal, and in 
        congressional testimony.

        .05 All allegations of scientific and research misconduct, and 
        loss of scientific integrity brought against covered 
        individuals will be thoroughly assessed to determine if they 
        are credible.

        .06 Credible allegations of fabrication, falsification, 
        plagiarism, and interference with or undue influence on 
        accurate public reporting of science will be examined using the 
        process laid out in the Procedural Handbook to this NAO and may 
        result in personnel actions, referral to the Inspector 
        General's office, or NOAA's Acquisition and Grants Office.

    The SI Order makes clear that NOAA considers all these policies 
necessary for its ability to fulfill its purpose: ``Transparency, 
traceability, and integrity [including prohibitions against 
falsification and fabrication] at all levels are required for NOAA to 
achieve its strategic vision of `healthy ecosystems, communities, and 
economies that are resilient in the face of change.' '' \22\ ``These 
are the ``core values of [NOAA] and the reason for maintaining this 
Order.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Id. at 7.
    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Biden Administration's Memorandum on Scientific Integrity
    In addition to the NOAA's scientific integrity policy, President 
Biden's Memorandum on Restoring Trust in Government Through Scientific 
Integrity and Evidence-Based Policymaking prohibits the influence of 
politics on science and requires government agencies to use well-
established scientific processes: \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Memorandum on Restoring Trust in Government Through Scientific 
Integrity and Evidence-Based Policymaking, 86 Fed. Reg. 8845 (Jan. 27, 
2021), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-02-10/pdf/2021-
02839.pdf.

        It is the policy of my Administration to make evidence-based 
        decisions guided by the best available science and data. 
        Scientific and technological information, data, and evidence 
        are central to the development and iterative improvement of 
        sound policies, and to the delivery of equitable programs, 
        across every area of government. Scientific findings should 
        never be distorted or influenced by political considerations. 
        When scientific or technological information is considered in 
        policy decisions, it should be subjected to well-established 
        scientific processes, including peer review where feasible and 
        appropriate, with appropriate protections for privacy.

Analysis
The Billions Project appears to violate basic scientific integrity 
        standards.

    Several potential violations have been identified and thoroughly 
analyzed by Professor Roger Pielke, Jr. in his forthcoming paper 
Scientific Integrity and U.S. ``Billion Dollar Disasters'' (the 
``Pielke Paper'').\25\ Professor Pielke identifies at least seven 
violations of scientific integrity within the Billions Project related 
to transparency and traceability. These errors also present concerns 
about falsification and fabrication because the discrepancies within 
the Project's dataset and its extreme departures from disaster loss 
estimates by other institutions are incapable of outside review and 
evaluation due to the opacity of the Project's baseline data and 
calculation methods. These errors are described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ A preprint of the Pielke Paper is available online: https://
osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/3vf7b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The Billions Project does not identify its sources or methods for 
        calculating disaster losses.

    NOAA's use of undisclosed non-traditional costs in its calculations 
can mislead and misinform the public about the relevant scale of the 
disaster losses reported in the Project's dataset.
    Though the Billions Project claims it uses ``[m]ore than one dozen 
public and private sector data sources help capture the total, direct 
costs (both insured and uninsured) of the weather and climate events'' 
it reports,\26\ the Project does not 1) identify these sources in 
relation to specific events, 2) explain how the estimates are derived 
from their sources, or 3) provide the estimates themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ FAQ: Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters, National 
Centers for Environmental Information, https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/
access/billions/faq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The absence of this information is not an idle concern, as it 
prevents meaningful review of the Project's methods and calculations. 
For example, the NOAA employees who maintain the Billions Project have 
identified non-traditional cost considerations, like livestock feeding 
costs as a function of national feedstock trends, as a variable used in 
compiling the Billions Project's dataset.\27\ But conventional disaster 
accounting methods do not consider livestock feeding costs in their 
calculations.\28\ Because the Billions Project's sources, estimates, 
and calculation methods are neither transparent nor traceable, it is 
not clear why costs such as livestock feeding costs are part of its 
calculations or how many other non-traditional costs are used in NOAA's 
calculations, how they are used, and how much they affect the total 
disaster losses reported in the Project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ Smith and Matthews, Quantifying Uncertainty and Variable 
Sensitivity within the U.S. Billion-dollar Weather and Climate Disaster 
Cost Estimates, Natural Hazards (2015), at 8. Available at https://
www.ncei.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/billions/docs/smith-and-matthews-
2015.pdf.
    \28\ Pielke Paper at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This opacity precludes other scientists, or even members of the 
public, from scrutinizing NOAA's decision-making and calculations in 
producing the Project's dataset and from evaluating the utility of its 
loss estimates. Furthermore, because NOAA does not disclose all the 
costs it considers in calculating its estimates and their details, it 
is impossible for independent sources to protect against the 
falsification and fabrication of data.
2. The Billions Project's accounting method for disaster loss estimates 
        are undisclosed and produce suspect results.

    Similarly, NOAA does not explain how it estimates the costs of 
disasters generally. This lack of transparency is particularly 
problematic given that NOAA's cost estimates appear to deviate 
dramatically from conventional accounting practices for disaster loss 
estimates.
    This is exemplified in its loss estimates for hurricanes. The 
historical practice of NOAA's National Hurricane Center has been to 
double insured losses from hurricanes to estimate total direct 
losses.\29\ But, for unexplained reasons, this is not the practice NOAA 
uses in the Billions Project, as demonstrated with its Hurricane Idalia 
estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hurricane Idalia hit Florida in September 2023. Initial catastrophe 
models estimated insured losses of $2.5 to $5 bil1ion; \30\ the 
Billions Project's initial estimate was $2.5 billion. But actual 
insured losses recorded after Idalia hit were far less: approximately 
$310 million.\31\ Under the National Hurricane Center's method, the 
estimated total direct losses would be about $620 million. But the 
Billions Project's estimate increased after the insured losses from 
Idalia came in at 1/4th of the lowest initial estimate. The Project's 
ultimate estimate was $3.5 billion,\32\ about six times higher than the 
National Hurricane Center's method would indicate. NOAA provides no 
explanation for why it increased its loss estimate after Idalia turned 
out to be less destructive than initially anticipated, nor does NOAA 
provide any explanation for why there is a massive disjunction between 
the Idalia loss estimates for two of its projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ RMS, Verisk Weigh in With Insured-Loss Estimates in Low 
Billions of Dollars From Idalia, Insurance Journal (Sept. 5, 2023), 
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2023/09/05/738970.htm.
    \31\ OIR Hurricane Idalia Information, Florida Office of Insurance 
Regulation (Updated November 16, 2023), https://www.floir.com/home/
idalia.
    \32\ Events, National Centers for Environmental Information, 
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/events/US/1980-
2023?disasters[]=all-disasters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The absence of transparency and traceability in the Billions 
Project's estimate methodology raises direct concerns about potential 
falsification or fabrication of data: there is no indication why the 
Billions Project's loss estimate for Hurricane Idalia so far exceeds 
what it ``should'' have been, nor whether these accounting 
discrepancies are pervasive throughout the Project's dataset.
3. The Billions Project adds and removes disaster events from the 
        dataset without acknowledgment or explanation.

    Because the Billions Project's dataset is ``living'' and new 
entries are added as disasters occur, it is expected for the dataset's 
count of disasters to increase over time. What is not expected is for 
disasters to be added years after they occur or for them to be removed 
from the dataset, and for it to do both without acknowledgment or 
explanation. Yet this occurs within the Project's dataset. Professor 
Pielke compared the version of the Project's dataset from late 2022 to 
an updated version published in mid-2023 and found that 10 new events 
were added and 3 were deleted in the mid-2023 version without any 
documentation or explanation reflecting these changes.\33\ Professor 
Pielke further compared the mid-2023 version to a more recent version 
and found an additional 4 historical events were added.\34\ While 
changes to the dataset to add or remove historical events may plausibly 
occur as a result of renewed research into the disaster records for 
particular years or as a result of clean up and re-evaluation of 
existing data, scientific integrity requires that such changes be 
documented with explanations of the analysis and decision-making behind 
them. Transparency and traceability require NOAA to disclose if it 
added historical events for reasons such as a change in its calculation 
methodology for disaster losses, or if it removed historical events 
because its calculations were incorrect, inflated, or based on an 
outmoded method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ Pielke Paper at 5.
    \34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Whatever the justification for NOAA's changes to the dataset, 
NOAA's scientific integrity principles require it to disclose that it 
changed its dataset and explain why. Instead, NOAA has provided no 
documentation, justification, or acknowledgement of these changes. In 
point of fact, Professor Pielke only discovered the discrepancy between 
these different versions of the dataset because he happened to download 
the publicly available version of the dataset at different times and 
realized they had different information for historical disasters.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. The Billions Project adjusts its loss data beyond what inflation-
        adjustments require and does so for unexplained reasons.

    According to NOAA, the only annual adjustment to the Billions 
Project's dataset that it acknowledges is to account for inflation 
based on the Consumer Price Index (``CPI'').\36\ As inflation 
adjustments based on the CPI are uniform, NOAA's adjustments should be 
uniform as well. But this is not the case. From 2022 to 2023, 
adjustments to the loss data for historical disasters in the dataset 
were made individually, and multiple of the adjustments were beyond 
what would be reasonable for a CPI-based inflation adjustment.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ Id.
    \37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Most disasters were adjusted between 4.5% and 6%. But 9 events were 
adjusted between 6.6% and 145%, and one was reduced by about 75%.\38\ 
NOAA provides no documentation or explanation for why its supposed 
inflation adjustment is not uniform and contains an increase of 145% to 
one event and a reduction of 75% to another. The opacity of NOAA's 
adjustment method, which must necessarily incorporate considerations 
beyond a CPI-based inflation adjustment, raises strong concerns about 
potential intentional data manipulation, if not outright falsification 
and fabrication, given the absence of a justification for its non-
uniform cost adjustments and its massive increases in the cost of 
certain events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. The Billions Project ``scales up'' loss data based on various 
        factors without disclosing the methodology for its calculation 
        or the baseline data.
    According to NOAA, it ``scal[es] up insured loss data to account 
for uninsured and underinsured losses, which differ[] by peril, 
geography, and asset class;'' NOAA refers to these adjustments as ``key 
transformations.'' \39\ But these ``key transformations,'' which all 
serve to raise the losses reported in the dataset, lack any 
transparency or traceability. NOAA adjusts the loss totals up using 
these transformations without providing any details on 1) the 
methodology for these transformations or their basis, 2) the impact 
these transformations have on loss estimates, 3) how these 
transformations may change over time or within the dataset, or 4) the 
baseline data on disaster losses prior to any transformations. NOAA 
admits that the losses it reports are higher than the baseline data 
would indicate but provides no way for its manipulations of the data to 
be scrutinized, evaluated, or replicated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ Calculating the Cost of Weather and Climate Disasters, 
National Centers for Environmental Information (Updated: Apr. 21, 
2022), https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/calculating-cost-weather-and-
climate-disasters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Furthermore, these ``key transformations'' are not the only data 
manipulations. NOAA employees refer to an overall bias correction 
applied to the dataset in a 2015 paper,\40\ and in another paper from 
2013, NOAA employees refer to other data adjustments, such as 
adjustments based on U.S. flood insurance participation rates.\41\ Like 
with the ``key transformations,'' NOAA fails to disclose either the 
methodologies or effects of these adjustments or the baseline data they 
were applied to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ Smith and Matthews at 4.
    \41\ Smith and Katz, U.S. Billion-dollar Weather and Climate 
Disaster: Data Sources, Trends, Accuracy and Biases, Natural Hazards 
(2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NOAA's approach to these key transformations violates its 
scientific integrity commitments. Not only does NOAA's approach to 
these key transformations eschew transparency and traceability, it also 
raises concerns about the potential for purposeful data manipulation, 
if not outright falsification and fabrication of the data, given that 
NOAA is manipulating the Project's loss data without disclosing any 
details.
6. The Billions Project appears to use inconsistent calculation methods 
        over time for unexplained reasons.

    Within the Billions Project's time series, there is an implausible 
and unexplained spike in billion-dollar disasters reported starting in 
2008, followed by a second spike starting in 2017. Prior to 2008, no 
year from 1980 to 2007 had more than four reported disasters. 2007 
reported none. But starting in 2008, the number of yearly reported 
disasters spiked tremendously, as reflected in the chart below: \42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ The chart is taken from the Pielke Paper at 6.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

    As the chart shows, prior to 2008, only two years (1998 and 
2000) had as many as four reported disasters. After the 2008 spike, 
only a single year had fewer than four disasters.
    All other years but one (2015) reported more than four. Starting in 
2017, there was a second spike and the number of yearly disasters 
increased precipitously. From 2017 to 2023, the average number of 
billion-dollar disasters each year was 9.2--more than 150% higher than 
the previous record for yearly disasters reported prior to 2017.
    Because of their sudden and unexplained appearance in the data. 
These sharp increases in the number of reported yearly disasters 
suggest a change in disaster accounting methods. But because NOAA does 
not disclose either the methods or raw data used for producing its 
dataset, it is impossible to know the reasons for these jumps in the 
dataset or to evaluate the consistency and accuracy of NOAA's 
calculations. The inability to investigate NOAA's methodologies to 
understand the reasons for these implausible discontinuities 
demonstrates why transparency and traceability are such fundamental 
principles of scientific integrity. NOAA's failure to abide by these 
principles leaves these discontinuities unexplained and raises the 
specter of intentional data manipulation, if not outright falsification 
and fabrication in the Project.
7. The Billions Project's loss estimates for hurricanes are 
        substantially and unexplainedly higher than the estimates 
        produced by NOAA's National Hurricane Center.

    Both the Billions Project and NOAA's National Hurricane Center 
maintain loss estimates for various hurricanes that have hit the United 
States. And both ostensibly use CPI-based adjustments for their loss 
data to account for inflation. But the Billions Project's loss data in 
almost all cases (with the exception of Hurricane Andrew from 1992) is 
substantially higher than the National Hurricane Center's.\43\ This is 
reflected in the below table: \44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ Pielke Paper at 6.
    \44\ Id.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

    There is no obvious pattern to the discrepancies between the 
National Hurricane Center's CPI-adjusted data and that of the Billions 
Project. Because NOAA neither documents nor releases the methodologies 
or baseline data it uses in its calculations, it is impossible to 
evaluate why there are such large differences between the two datasets. 
The absence of transparency and traceability in the Billions Project's 
methods raises the concern that the unexplained increases in the 
Project's reported losses compared to the National Hurricane Center's 
reported losses are the result intentional data manipulation, if not 
outright falsification and fabrication in the Project.

NOAA misuses the Billions Project as evidence of increased disaster 
      harms from climate change.

    Alongside the lack of transparency and traceability in the Billions 
Project's dataset and the attendant concerns about data falsification 
and fabrication, NOAA misuses the dataset as evidence of increased 
harms from climate change.
    Due to its design limitations, the dataset cannot serve as evidence 
that climate change itself is responsible for any increase in losses 
from natural disasters over time. This is because the dataset bluntly 
reflects total economic losses from disasters and does not breakdown 
and separate-out the influence of the various factors that contribute 
disaster losses. Intensity of weather events alone is not the sole, or 
even primary, cause for total losses suffered because the vulnerability 
and exposure to harm of the people and assets from disaster damage are 
key factors affecting total losses. For example, a super storm hitting 
a barren wasteland with no population will cause significantly less (or 
no) loss compared to a smaller storm hitting Manhattan. Concentrations 
of people and wealth, and the relative vulnerability of both to 
disaster damage, are essential factors in disaster losses.
    Because the Billions Project's dataset is solely derived from 
economic loss data, it does not (and cannot) conclusively disaggregate 
the effect of climate change on disaster losses over time from the 
effect of population growth and economic expansion. These human/
economic factors alone can entirely explain an increase in losses from 
disasters: as the population and the economy grow, including in areas 
vulnerable to disasters, the potential damage from disasters increases 
simply because there is more wealth vulnerable to destruction. Without 
further data beyond mere economic loss, the Billions Project's dataset 
cannot detect the influence of climate change on disaster losses nor 
attribute any change in losses to climate change.
    NOAA researchers admitted this limitation in a 2013 paper on the 
Billions Project: ``the billion-dollar dataset is only adjusted for the 
CPI over time, not currently incorporating any changes in exposure 
(e.g., as reflect by shifts in wealth or population).'' \45\ Other 
researchers have attempted to ``normalize'' disaster data to account 
for changes in exposure and vulnerability.\46\ A simple method used to 
normalize disaster losses over time is to use GDP as a proxy for 
increasing population and wealth and analyze disaster losses as a 
percentage of US GDP.\47\ Professor Pielke provides a graph 
demonstrating how this analysis would apply to the Billions Project's 
dataset: \48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\ Smith and Katz at 24.
    \46\ Professor Pielke reviewed 54 papers on normalization in a 2020 
paper. See Pielke, Economic `normalization' of disaster losses 1998-
2020: a literature review and assessment, Environmental Hazards Vol. 
20, 2021.
    \47\ Pielke Paper at 8-9.
    \48\ Id. at 9.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

    The graph reflects that losses from disasters are down as a 
proportion of GDP since 1980 according to the Project's own dataset. 
This trend is reflected in other normalization analyses that use more 
sophisticated and detailed methods.\49\ These analyses reflect that 
hurricane, flood, and tornado losses have all decreased as a proportion 
of GDP on climate time scales-as has the aggregate for disaster losses 
overall.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\ See id. at 10 (collecting six research papers reflecting the 
same downward trend in disaster costs relative to GDP).
    \50\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NOAA's failure to account for changes in exposure and vulnerability 
of people and assets to harm from disasters introduces a significant 
bias into the Billions Project and obscures that a significant portion 
(or all) of the increases in loss totals it reports over time are a 
result of population and economic growth, not climate trends. NOAA 
researchers acknowledged as much over a decade ago, stating that ``the 
magnitude of such increasing trends [in disaster costs] is greatly 
diminished when applied to data normalized for exposure.'' \51\ Claims 
that the Billions Project provides evidence of increasing harms from 
climate change are therefore misleading and unscientific. Not only is 
it impossible for the Billions Project to provide such evidence because 
it does not normalize for increases in vulnerability and exposure, but 
such normalization analyses show that the relative harm of disasters 
has diminished over the lifetime of the Billions Project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\ Smith and Katz at 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite these issues with the Billions Project and despite NOAA's 
direct acknowledgment of the role vulnerability and exposure play in 
disaster losses, NOAA officials and staff have repeatedly made 
misleading and unscientific claims that the Billions Project indicates 
ever-worsening harms from climate change. In a statement to CBS News, a 
NOAA official responsible for the Project's dataset claimed that 
``climate change is supercharging many of these extremes that can lead 
to billion-dollar disasters.'' \52\ And at a 2022 press conference 
where an update to the Project's dataset was released, a NOAA 
administrator claimed that the dataset indicates that ``climate change 
is creating more and more intense extreme events that cause significant 
damage.'' \53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\ 18 extreme weather events caused $165 billion in damage last 
year, NOAA says, CBS News (Jan. 10, 2023), https://www.cbsnews.com/
news/noaa-billion-dollar-weather-disasters-2022-hurricane-ian-drought/.
    \53\ Nathan Rott, Extreme weather,fueled by climate change, cost 
the U.S. $165 billion in 2022, National Public Radio (Jan. 12, 2023), 
https://www.npr.org/2023/01/12/1148633707/extreme-weather-fueled-by-
climate-change-cost-the-u-s-165-billion-in-2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion

    The American people deserve to have their tax dollars fund science 
that satisfies all the rigors of scientific integrity, to have their 
agencies abide by their own standards, and to have their government 
produce and rely on only the highest-quality scientific research. It is 
therefore imperative that the apparent scientific integrity issues in 
the Billions Project be addressed. The national conversation on climate 
change and disaster-response should not be tainted by inaccurate, 
misleading, and self-serving scientific analysis. Accordingly, we 
request an immediate investigation into NOAA's apparent violations of 
its scientific integrity principles in its operation and promotion of 
the Billions Project.

       Sincerely,

                                           Michael Chamberlain,
                                                           Director

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


The full document is available for viewing at:

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II13/20240516/117321/HHRG-
118-II13-20240516-SD005.pdf

                                ______                                


    Ms. Hageman. Thank you. With that, I yield back. I would 
now recognize Mr. Newhouse for his 5 minutes of questioning.
    Mr. Newhouse. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for letting 
me be on the panel this afternoon. I am here to talk about a 
recent Fish and Wildlife Service final rule that has, I 
believe, the potential to have grave consequences on my 
constituents and visitors to the northern part of my district.
    Director Williams, you recently decided, I might add 
against the will of my constituents, to move forward with the 
introduction of grizzly bears into my district. Of the $338.2 
million requested in the budget for resource management to 
conserve, protect, and enhance listed and at-risk wildlife, 
fish, plants, and their habitats, can you tell me how much is 
currently allocated to finalize the grizzly bear plan?
    Ms. Williams. Congressman, I do not have the exact number 
for that, but I would say that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service's role----
    Mr. Newhouse. Well, let me just say that, if you don't have 
the number, I would certainly like that. And it seems to me 
after reading through your testimony and listening to the 
comments, that this money would be much better used to ``end 
the erosion,'' your words, of your on-the-ground conservation 
efforts, as described in your testimony.
    So, I should ask you, why is it, after over a decade of 
public meetings, comment periods, two administrations, both 
Republican and Democrat, are you moving forward with this plan?
    However, I can answer that for you. Your agency is bending 
to the extreme environmentalists who continually abuse the ESA 
against the will of private landowners.
    Earlier this week, we had a conversation with Director Sams 
of the Park Service. He stated that the most pertinent reason 
for moving these bears is their cultural significance. So, 
would you think your agency should be making decisions on 
current species management because of cultural significance?
    More directly, Director Williams, would you feel safe if a 
female grizzly bear made her way into your backyard in search 
of her cubs? That situation will soon be a reality for my 
constituents because of your agency's actions.
    When we met last November, I remind you, you told me that 
this 10(j) proposal was needed to expand management options due 
to the fact, I underscore that word, the ``fact,'' that the 
First Nations Tribes in British Columbia had plans to 
imminently move bears to the northern border of the North 
Cascades Ecosystem.
    I would like to now enter into the record, if I could, 
Madam Chair, correspondence between my staff and the Canadian 
Government, specifically staff from the British Columbian 
Province. This correspondence states that there are no 
immediate plans to move bears into the Canadian side of the 
North Cascades Ecosystem. Now, I find that very interesting.
    So, what is abundantly clear to me now is that your agency 
is relocating bears from other ecosystems, perhaps Yellowstone, 
to prevent delisting, in spite of population recovery metrics 
having been achieved as outlined per the ESA.
    As a Representative of Washington's 4th Congressional 
District, I do listen to my constituents, unlike your agency. 
And in light of that, I will be introducing a resolution of 
disapproval under the Congressional Review Act to overturn the 
final 10(j) rule, and I will continue to fight for the farmers, 
the ranchers, and the rural communities near the North 
Cascades.
    With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Williams. Madam Chair, Congressman, was there a 
question in that, and may I answer?
    Ms. Hageman. He yielded back. We are going to recess now 
until, I believe, around 5, according to the Chairman, as we 
need to go vote. Thank you.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Bentz [presiding]. The Committee will come to order. 
Thank you for your patience.
    Mr. Stauber, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate 
your affording me the opportunity to waive on to this 
Subcommittee.
    Director Williams, it is good to see you. In advance, my 
condolences. I will be directing the bulk of my questions to 
you today, but it is not all bad, I promise. In all sincerity, 
I want to thank you and the Service for your recent decision 
this April against listing the lake sturgeon under the 
Endangered Species Act. The Service followed the facts, the 
data, and the science in making this determination. I truly 
want to recognize the Service not only for doing the right 
thing, but for the engagement with my staff, the career staff 
at the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and citizens 
across our great state.
    As you recognized in your determination, the individual 
state wildlife managers across the upper Midwest and the public 
are doing a great job of ensuring the protection and proper 
management of the lake sturgeon. A failure to properly 
recognize this would have been devastating to northern 
Minnesota, as you know.
    Respectfully, I wish this was the case with other species 
under scrutiny by the Fish and Wildlife Service, and I am sure 
you know where I am going to go. We are going to be talking 
about the gray wolf today.
    Chairman Bentz just convened a Subcommittee hearing in 
northern Minnesota on this very issue less than 2 weeks ago. 
During that hearing, we heard from stakeholders from Oregon, 
Wisconsin, and Minnesota on the listing status of the gray 
wolf. Across the board, we heard loud and clear the gray wolf 
has recovered. Unfortunately, the Fish and Wildlife Service 
declined this Subcommittee's invitation to attend and 
participate in that hearing. Hopefully, you can provide answers 
to some of the questions we were looking for today.
    During the hearing, we were reminded of the fact that at 
least half the gray wolves in the Lower 48 are present in 
Minnesota. And according to your agency and the Minnesota DNR's 
estimates, we have over 2,700 wolves in Minnesota today. And 
some think even more than that. When the gray wolf was listed 
under the ESA in 1978, a recovery goal of 1,250 to 1,400 wolves 
was set. It is clear we are far beyond that.
    Director Williams, since the recovery goal has been met, 
why hasn't the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service taken action to 
delist the gray wolf in Minnesota?
    Ms. Williams. Mr. Chair, Congressman Stauber, I look 
forward to visiting with you more on this at some point. I have 
not had a chance to sit down with you one-on-one and talk 
through wolves, and I would certainly look forward to that 
opportunity.
    And I am sorry that we were not at that hearing. The Fish 
and Wildlife Service prides itself for showing up, and it was 
an issue of scheduling and preparing for this hearing. So, I am 
sorry that we weren't there for that.
    There are numerous processes before the Fish and Wildlife 
Service regarding wolves right now. In fact, I keep a chart to 
keep track of each of them. The previous administration had a 
rule that the Fish and Wildlife Service promulgated to delist 
the Lower 48.
    Mr. Stauber. Under the past three administrations they have 
supported the delisting, because they have recovered. So, go 
on.
    Ms. Williams. A district court overturned that decision. It 
is now in an appeal process.
    I also would love to recognize that I have worked on wolves 
and wolf recovery for 30 years, from their first re-
introduction to now, and very much----
    Mr. Stauber. Do you believe they have recovered? Do you 
believe your own U.S. Fish and Wildlife stats that the gray 
wolf has recovered?
    Ms. Williams. I believe that they have met sufficient 
numbers. But as to all five factors of the ESA, I don't have an 
answer for you on that right now. But I would agree the numbers 
are there.
    But I would also, just like with grizzly bears and 
Congressman Hageman, the analysis the Fish and Wildlife Service 
undertakes is not just focused on the numbers, but also the 
other five factors.
    Mr. Stauber. I will tell you that 2 weeks ago Congress 
actually started the legislating of delisting the gray wolf, 
and it was a bipartisan effort. Before that vote even passed, 
the Biden administration issued a Statement of Administrative 
Policy, or a SAP, noting that the President would veto this 
bill if it came to his desk.
    Director Williams, was your office consulted on this before 
the SAP was issued?
    Ms. Williams. Congressman, I am aware of what the SAP says, 
and what the explanation in the SAP is.
    Mr. Stauber. Was your office consulted on this before the 
SAP was issued?
    Ms. Williams. I do not have an answer to that. I was not 
personally----
    Mr. Stauber. Did you or anybody in your office provide any 
recommendation to the White House on the SAP?
    Ms. Williams. Not that I am aware of. I did not, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Stauber. So, here is the concern. The White House made 
a policy decision relating to wildlife management without 
consulting with the Federal Government's top official relating 
to wildlife management, and that is you and your staff. That is 
the frustrating thing. The White House put forth a SAP, 
Director, without your knowledge or without your input.
    Ms. Williams. Congressman, I was aware of it, and I agree 
with the SAP for these reasons, that the Endangered Species Act 
is driven by the law and science, and the Fish and Wildlife 
Service would not support a congressional action to delist a 
species. We would like to see the process of the ESA play out.
    Mr. Stauber. Director, I understand the process. You can 
process things to death, so long as it never happens. But we 
had President Obama, his administration, President Biden, and 
President Trump's administration all supported the delisting.
    I see my time is up. I would ask that you answer one 
question, and I will submit it to the Chair when I am done.
    Thank you very much, and I yield back.

    Mr. Bentz. Mr. Moylan, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Moylan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to 
waive into the hearing to hear our Administrator Spinrad here.
    And I do hear constantly from Guam's local agencies and 
fishermen that the foreign fishery vessels operate illegally in 
Guam's waters, and the IUU fishing is a matter of both economic 
and national security for Guam. It is no secret that there are 
a large number of PRC vessels fishing illegally in the Western 
Pacific. A 2021 report from the Office of Naval Intelligence 
confirms that China's distant water fishing fleets may also 
engage in security operations.
    Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the 
record a 2021 ONR report titled, ``Foreign Governments Use of 
Distant Water Fishing Fleets as Extensions of the Maritime 
Security Forces and Foreign Policies.''
    Mr. Bentz. Without objection.
    Mr. Moylan. Thank you, sir.
    This report lays out the startling reality, yet in my 
meetings with NOAA officials they constantly underestimate, 
understate, or outright deny the problem with IUU fishing in 
the Western Pacific.
    In fact, this report here has been updated about every 4 
years, and initially you only see just a few dark blue spots. 
And then, within less than an 8-year period, now it is 
multiple, spread everywhere. Those are IUU fishings. In Guam, 
there is a small section there, if you can figure out where 
Asia is there, with China, and we are just a small dot in this 
dark blue circle, and it is really affecting the island.
    So, the question for our NOAA Administrator Spinrad, sir, 
yes or no, please. Does NOAA believe that there is an IUU 
fishing problem in the Western Pacific?
    Dr. Spinrad. Yes.
    Mr. Moylan. Thank you. And how many cases in the Pacific 
territories has NOAA's Office of Law Enforcement referred to 
NOAA's Special Counsel or Department of Justice for review and 
prosecution? Just a rough estimate.
    Dr. Spinrad. I am going to have to get back to you for the 
record with the specific numbers.
    Mr. Moylan. OK. I can let you know, from our record, since 
2015 there have been 0. And we cannot identify if there is 
really a problem unless we start seeing where it is.
    And in the report, there are these dark blue circles 
everywhere, and it continues to grow. I bet you 4 years from 
now it is going to be all over the place. So, I think the IUU 
is a serious problem, and I would really, really appreciate the 
focus on this problem.
    Mr. Administrator, what projections would the Pacific 
remote island areas add that are not already in place through 
the current cumbersome system of management?
    Do we really need more red tape and regulations?
    Dr. Spinrad. Congressman, thank you for your attention to 
this particularly insidious problem, and I want to disabuse you 
of the sense that we don't care. In fact, I would emphasize the 
point that this is a very important issue for us for a variety 
of reasons, not the least of which is our responsibilities in 
the Department of Commerce for ensuring economic security, but 
food security, and addressing that our seafood enterprise or 
seafood economy is solid.
    We have identified IUU fishing as a critical area for 
development of new tools and new capabilities. We are currently 
working on finding enhanced enforcement opportunities for 
Maritime Safe, the Port State Measures Act, and the Moratorium 
Protection Act, as well as doubling down on our seafood import 
monitoring program, especially the enforcement pieces, and 
especially, I would add, the unfair labor practices and forced 
labor activities associated with IUU fishing.
    Mr. Moylan. It is important, the IUU, and we should be 
addressing it, but I don't think we should be addressing it by 
adding more sanctuaries in my area of Guam, in the Marianas 
Trench. We should be focused on the IUU. But I am glad to hear 
that.
    Now, the Marine Conservation Plan and marine project areas. 
NOAA's Equity and Environmental Justice Strategy and the 
President's Environmental Justice for All Executive Order 
states that the underserved communities should not face 
disproportionate burdens or under-investment. Quite frankly, 
both burdens and the underinvestment are Guam's realities.
    Basically, I know we are running short on time here, but 
let's see if we can get one question. You are asking for $17 
million in additional fundings for sanctuaries and marine 
project areas. Disproportionately, sanctuaries affect the 
fishing industries of the Pacific territories more than the 
mainland in the United States. With the Pacific Remote Islands 
Sanctuary, what economic impact do you see for the Pacific 
territories?
    Dr. Spinrad. We definitely understand the importance of the 
fisheries development projects in Guam. With respect to 
specifically the Marine Conservation Plan, I can assure you 
that we support the fisheries conservation and management 
objectives, and we look forward to exploring the ways in which 
we might be able to work closely with the territories on that 
plan.
    Mr. Moylan. All right. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am out 
of time. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes Mr. Carter for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
allowing me to waive on to this Committee.
    Although I am not a member of the Committee, I am a member 
of the Western Caucus. In fact, I like to take the title of 
being the most eastern-most member of the Western Caucus. I 
have the honor and privilege of representing the entire coast 
of Georgia, including an area known as Okefenokee Swamp, an 
area that is very important to us and that we are very proud 
of, and that we do a lot to protect.
    I have heard about the hardships that have been 
communicated by my Western colleagues about dealing with the 
permitting of Federal Government and the over-reach into their 
natural resources, especially when it comes to mining. And now 
this all-of-the-government approach that this Administration 
seems to be using, it seems to be causing problems and stepping 
all over states' rights.
    Director Williams, your agency keeps trying to create 
Federal hooks to assert jurisdiction over certain areas, 
including in my district in Okefenokee Swamp, to stop all kinds 
of important development projects.
    Please, let me preface this by saying I am not taking up 
for the project. I am not entering an opinion one way or the 
other. My concern here is the Federal Government and their role 
in this, and why they are inserting themselves into this when 
it is obviously, and has been stated to be, a state project and 
under state permitting.
    There is a mining project right outside the Okefenokee 
Wildlife Refuge. It is not within the refuge, it is outside. I 
want to make sure that we understand that. It is not under Fish 
and Wildlife jurisdiction. But over the last year, your agency 
has tried to insert itself into the state process, even though 
there isn't a Federal nexus. Even the Corps of Engineers has 
said that there is no Federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction 
where they wanted to mine in this district.
    Then Interior Secretary Haaland wrote an unsolicited 
letter, unsolicited, to Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, not to 
allow the mine to proceed. That, to me, is over-reach of the 
Secretary's authority, and without legal basis.
    Now, the Fish and Wildlife Service last month has sent out 
a what I would consider to be propaganda document that is 
disguised as a fact sheet opposing this project. And Mr. 
Chairman, I would like to enter this into the record, if I 
could. It reads to be intervention. It looks to be 
intervention. It smells like intervention. I would submit to 
you it is intervention on behalf of the Federal Government, and 
I would like to submit this into the record, if I could.
    Mr. Bentz. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

                                ______
                                 

    Mr. Carter. My question, Director Williams, is this: Why 
don't you trust the state to do their job? Why has the Federal 
Government entered into this?
    Ms. Williams. Mr. Chair and Congressman Carter, thank you 
for this question, and our shared interest in the Okefenokee 
Swamp and the National Wildlife Refuge.
    A year ago, I went and camped in the wilderness. I think 
many people don't realize there is a wilderness.
    Mr. Carter. We are not talking about the wilderness. We are 
talking outside of the swamp. We are talking outside of that.
    Ms. Williams. Congressman, the Fish and Wildlife Service 
provided comments to the state permit application, as we do 
when we are adjacent landowners. In this instance, the Fish and 
Wildlife Service commented on the proposal. In working in close 
contact with the state of Georgia, both the Commission and the 
agency, we commented because the proposed action has the 
potential to negatively impact the National Wildlife Refuge and 
the water rights.
    Mr. Carter. When you send the Governor a letter asking him 
to oppose it and to stop the project.
    Ms. Williams. I am sorry, Congressman, I am not following 
your question.
    I have been paying very close attention to this matter. And 
as I said, I have been working with our regional director in 
the state of Georgia.
    Mr. Carter. You are saying for the record that you are 
opposing this project, and that you are spending Federal 
taxpayers' money to put out propaganda like this opposing the 
project.
    Ms. Williams. Congressman, I am not aware.
    Mr. Carter. That is outside of the refuge.
    Ms. Williams. I am not aware of the flier. The Fish and 
Wildlife Service does oppose an activity that negatively 
impacts the water rights and the refuge that is the only one of 
its kind, as you know, in this country.
    Mr. Carter. I understand that.
    Ms. Williams. So, where the impacts----
    Mr. Carter. And again, I am not questioning whether the 
mine should go forward or not. That is up to the state of 
Georgia. My point here is that the Fish and Wildlife has 
inserted themselves into something that even the Army Corps of 
Engineers said they had no right to do.
    And I am wondering to myself, why the Secretary sends a 
letter to the Governor telling him to oppose this project? Why 
don't we trust the state?
    Can you give me an example of other projects that you are 
opposing that are outside of your jurisdiction?
    Ms. Williams. Congressman, we are not at all saying we 
don't trust the state. The states often do invite us to comment 
on the impacts of a proposal before them. And in this instance, 
I would argue that the state of Georgia, the agency reviewing 
this, wants to know and is looking at the potential impacts of 
the proposed mine or not.
    Mr. Carter. And with all due respect, Director, I would 
submit to you that the state of Georgia is perfectly capable of 
making these types of decisions, and without the intervention 
and without propaganda being sent by the Fish and Wildlife. And 
you are intervening in an area that is obviously outside of 
your jurisdiction.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to waive on to 
this.
    And thank you, Director Williams, for your answers.
    Ms. Williams. Thank you.
    Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
    Commissioner Touton, I want to thank you for your efforts 
in the Klamath, a hugely challenging situation. Your phrase, or 
I think the phrase was, ``We have to find a way to help provide 
certainty,'' an admirable goal. I look forward to working with 
you on that, and we have been working on that. And you might 
share with us later, off camera here, so to speak, when and 
what you have in mind in that regard.
    Ms. Touton. I am happy to follow up, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Bentz. I can't think of anything much more important to 
the farmers in that space than certainty, which they certainly 
have not had to this point.
    Director Williams, I want to thank you also for the work on 
the wolf. I just want you to say, for purposes of the record 
today, that the wolf is not endangered.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Bentz. I am listening.
    Ms. Williams. Chairman, you are asking for me to say that 
the wolf is not endangered?
    Mr. Bentz. Your agency has already said it. It actually 
said the wolf is, as things currently stand, good for another 
100 years. So, can you say, as the Director, the wolf is not 
endangered?
    Ms. Williams. Congressman, I cannot say a hypothetical.
    Mr. Bentz. All right, fine. You can't say it. Just say no. 
Say you can't say it. Apparently, the wolf is endangered in 
your mind, even though your agency says otherwise.
    Ms. Williams. Congressman, the Fish and Wildlife Service 
just issued a finding that the northern Rocky Mountain wolf 
population is not threatened or endangered.
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, that is good. I want to shift now to 
Secretary Spinrad.
    Mr. Secretary, you have a considerable amount of money in 
your budget for studies, all kinds of different labels on those 
studies. But my question is, how much of your focus is on the 
salmon that emerged from the Snake and Columbia Rivers and go 
into the ocean? How much of your budget is focused on figuring 
out what is going on in the ocean with those salmon and 
steelhead emerging from the Columbia River? And the Snake 
River?
    Dr. Spinrad. Thank you for the question, Chair.
    There are dedicated investments that we make for very 
specific studies. And there are, in fact, eight specific salmon 
studies in the ocean.
    Mr. Bentz. So, what I need to have you do is get those to 
this Committee. I absolutely need those studies. And I want to 
see what your agency is doing to help offset, if you will, the 
three-quarters of a billion dollars that the ratepayers of the 
Northwest are investing in the in-stream portion of that system 
every year.
    And I want to see what you are doing in your agency to go 
into the ocean and figure out what is going on with the half of 
the fish that get to Bonneville, but only one comes back on the 
example of, like, 100 fish starting in Idaho. So, I need to 
have those studies.
    And more to the point, I kind of want to see what their 
results are, so we don't have this ongoing maybe it is going to 
work out, maybe it isn't.
    Dr. Spinrad. Can I just correct that there are actually 
nine studies, and we will get those to you.
    Mr. Bentz. Say that again.
    Dr. Spinrad. There are actually nine specific studies. We 
will get those to you.
    Mr. Bentz. Yes. I also want you to show me the type of 
analysis you are doing in selecting the scientists to do the 
studies. I want to see the science, how you do it, because I 
think there is discrimination going on in who you hire, how you 
hire them. I want to see what you are doing when it comes to 
employing.
    Dr. Spinrad. Those are in combination with our academic 
partners, I would point out, as well. We can certainly get you 
that information.
    Mr. Bentz. I want to read this number to you here, and ask 
this question. The question is lack of regulatory authority. 
Neither the ESA nor the MMPA provides NMFS with the authority 
to impose broad rules to regulate a societal activity like 
boating that has a very low probability of occurring. The 
probability of a vessel in a 35- to 65-foot class size class 
striking a right whale is less than 1 in 1 million. Do you 
agree or disagree?
    Dr. Spinrad. I actually disagree with that fact, based on 
what we have seen this year.
    Mr. Bentz. What is your opinion? What is the probability?
    Dr. Spinrad. That there is a higher probability. We have 
had three strikes this year, and we know that some of those 
strikes are from smaller vessels.
    Mr. Bentz. Well, you had three strikes. What is the 
probability of that happening?
    Dr. Spinrad. I don't have that number.
    Mr. Bentz. I suppose if there were three ships out there, 
it would be 100 percent. But there are thousands of ships out 
there. So, again, I need this number from you so we can kind of 
get a grasp on the regulatory authority situation.
    I want to shift again, sticking with NMFS, to the outcome 
of the so-called ``friendly lawsuit.'' We call it a ``friendly 
lawsuit'' back in my law practice when the so-called mediation 
was worked out in determining what to do with the Snake River 
dams.
    Is it your opinion that those four lower Snake River dams 
should come out? Is it your agency's opinion that they should 
come out?
    Dr. Spinrad. It is our agency's view that we can identify 
what the impacts are on the salmon population. We don't express 
an opinion on whether the dams should go in or go out, and that 
authority actually resides with Congress.
    Mr. Bentz. I would be probably hugely interested in knowing 
where the ``healthy and abundant'' standard came from that 
appears in the mediation documents. It certainly isn't the ESA 
standard.
    Can you share with us where that standard came from that is 
now working its way into the documentation, the mediation 
documents about where everybody wants to end up?
    And I want you also to say that this is what the ratepayers 
of the Northwest are now going to be asked to pay for, this so-
called healthy and abundant standard.
    Dr. Spinrad. We can certainly get back to you for the 
record on where the standard comes from, and the background on 
that.
    Mr. Bentz. I know where the standard came from. It came 
from a document that was called, ``The Columbia Basin 
Restoration Initiative.''
    Dr. Spinrad. Yes.
    Mr. Bentz. It is not a rulemaking exercise.
    My time is up. I want to thank all of you for being here. I 
want to thank you for coming back after we came off the Floor 
from voting. Thank you all for your patience.
    And 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, May 21. The hearing record will 
be held open for 10 business days for these responses.
    I also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a 
letter received by the Committee from the Santa Ynez Band of 
Chumash Indians.
    Without objection, so ordered.

    [The information follows:]

                   SANTA YNEZ BAND OF CHUMASH INDIANS

                             Santa Ynez, CA

John Armor, Director
Office of National Marine Sanctuaries
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
1305 East-West Hwy
Silver Spring, MD 20910

    Dear Director Armor:

    We, the Santa Ynez Band of the Chumash Indians and the 
International Connectivity Coalition (ICC), write to express our 
unified support for the designation of the Chumash Heritage National 
Marine Sanctuary. We ask that this designation allow for the 
maintenance and expansion of submarine communication cables within the 
Sanctuary boundaries to ensure that Indian Country and other 
underserved communities across the nation can have access to expanded, 
affordable and reliable internet in the years to come.

    For generations, indigenous communities have been subjected to a 
communications gap compared to other parts of the United States. Even 
today, this gap is pervasive. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of 
Minneapolis:

     Households in tribal communities are 21 percent less 
            likely to have access to the internet than neighboring non-
            tribal communities;

     Download speeds in tribal communities are 66 percent 
            slower than download speeds in neighboring non-tribal 
            communities; and

     Upload speeds in tribal communities are 78 percent slower 
            than download speeds in neighboring non-tribal communities.

    Reliable access to and expansion of subsea cables and the 
corresponding investment in internet infrastructure along the 
California Central Coast will play a significant role in helping 
address these shortcomings over time.

    Importantly, we believe that submarine cables and conservation can 
co-exist within the boundaries of the proposed sanctuary. The existing 
regulatory structure relies on layers of environmental reviews and 
permitting from multiple federal agencies--including the USACE, NOAA 
and the FWS--as well as rigorous analysis and permitting by the State 
of California's Lands Commission and Coastal Commission. This 
regulatory structure has allowed for a dramatic expansion in 
connectivity in recent years while ensuring that subsea and coastal 
resources receive the protection they deserve. Consequently, provided 
this existing process is followed after a Sanctuary declaration, we 
believe this level of review should negate the need for further 
permitting, including utilization of NOAA's Special Use Permits.

    Since these subsea cables will be leveraged to expand the capacity 
of the U.S. telecommunications to grow in a way that allows for 
increased connectivity in Indian Country and in other underserved 
communities, we respectfully urge the current regulatory and permitting 
processes be deemed adequate for managing submarine cable activities 
within the sanctuary boundaries.

    The Santa Ynez Band of the Chumash Tribe and the ICC are committed 
to advancing technological development while respecting and preserving 
cultural heritage and environmental integrity. The cooperative approach 
between these entities exemplifies a balanced path forward, where 
technological advancement and environmental conservation go hand in 
hand. We look forward to working with NOAA to ensure these shared goals 
are met within the boundaries of a future Chumash Heritage National 
Marine Sanctuary.

            Sincerely,

        Kenneth Kahn, Chairman        Elaine Albrich, on behalf of the
        Santa Ynez Band of Chumash    International Connectivity Coalition
          Indians                        
                                      
                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Bentz. If there is no further business before the 
Committee, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 5:38 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

            [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Submission for the Record by Rep. Bentz

                            STATE OF OREGON

Committee on Natural Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Subject: Federal Delisting of Grey Wolves

    We are writing to express our support for the delisting of the grey 
wolf (Canis lupus) in America, echoing sentiments shared by many who 
have witnessed the remarkable recovery of this iconic species since its 
initial listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1973.

    Since the enactment of the ESA, wolves have experienced a 
remarkable resurgence, expanding exponentially in numbers and range 
across the United States. This resurgence is a testament to the 
effectiveness of the ESA in providing crucial protections and fostering 
the recovery of imperiled species. The successful reintroduction of an 
experimental population into Yellowstone National Park and Central 
Idaho in the mid-1990s marked a turning point, leading to a resurgence 
that has seen wolves reclaim territory in adjoining states and even 
establish stable populations in Oregon and Washington. The wolf 
populations in California and Nevada have also been dispersing.

    The states empowered by the ESA and guided by their respective wolf 
management plans, have played a pivotal role in safeguarding and 
managing wolf populations. Oregon and Washington have demonstrated 
exemplary commitment to wolf conservation and management, despite 
three-fourths of their states being under ESA jurisdiction. Both states 
have implemented robust management and protection measures, leading to 
the stabilization of wolf populations, and prompting efforts to delist 
wolves as endangered species.

    On November 9th, 2015, Oregon voted to the delist wolves in Oregon 
thus marking a significant milestone in recognizing the success of 
state-led conservation efforts. Subsequent legislative actions 
regarding that decision were made and was affirmed by the Oregon State 
Legislature and Oregon State Governor in HB 4040 (2016) which 
underscored the commitment of the state to assume greater 
responsibility for the management and protection of wolves.

    It is evident that the ESA has fulfilled its mandate in 
facilitating the recovery of the grey wolf, paving the way for 
successful state-led conservation efforts. Now with stable wolf 
populations and comprehensive management plans in place, it is time to 
transition authority and responsibility for wolf management solely to 
the states. By delisting the grey wolf we can acknowledge the 
achievements of both the ESA and state conservation efforts while 
ensuring the continued conservation and sustainable management of this 
iconic species.

    Considering these developments, I urge you to consider the 
overwhelming evidence supporting the delisting of the grey wolf and to 
prioritize the transfer of authority to state agencies for the 
management and protection of this species. We must recognize the 
recovery of the grey wolf population in the lower 48 otherwise Federal 
ESA recovery loses its legitimacy.

           Respectfully,

        Bobby Levy                    Tim Knopp
        House District 58             Senate District 27

        Bill Hansell                  Boomer Wright
        Senate District 29            House District 9

        David Brock Smith             Court Boice
        Senate District 1             House District 1

        Lynn Findley                  Jeff Helfrich
        Senate District 30            House District 52
        Mark Owens                    Rick Lewis
        House District 60             House District 18

        Cyrus Javadi                  Christine Goodwin
        House District 32             House District 4

        Emily McIntire                Virgle Osborne
        House District 56             House District 2

        Anna Scharf                   Ed Diehl
        House District 23             House District 17

        E. Werner Reschke             Dwayne Yunker
        House District 55             House District 3

        Christina Witham              Vicki Breese-Iverson
        Baker County Commissioner     House District 5

        Shane Alderson                Dan Dorran
        Baker County Commissioner     Umatilla County Commissioner

        Bruce Nichols                 John Shafer
        Baker County Commissioner     Umatilla County Commissioner

        Todd Nash                     Cindy Timmons
        Wallowa County Commissioner   Umatilla County Commissioner

        Susan Roberts                 Derrick DeGroot
        Wallowa County Commissioner   Klamath County Commissioner

        John Hillock                  Patti Adair
        Wallowa County Commissioner   Deschutes County Commissioner

        Paul Anderes                  John Rowell
        Union County Commissioner     Grant County Commissioner

        Matt Scarfo                   Roy Drago Jr.
        Union County Commissioner     Morrow County Commissioner

        Donna Beverage
        Union County Commissioner

                                 ______
                                 

Submission for the Record by Rep. Westerman

                                                    May 6, 2024    

Hon. Martha Williams, Director
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1849 C Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20240

    Dear Director Williams:

    The undersigned organizations, which represent millions of 
America's hunters, anglers, recreational shooters, wildlife scientists, 
and other conservation professionals, write regarding the recently 
proposed rule and policy updates known as the National Wildlife Refuge 
System (NWRS) biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health 
(BIDEH) proposal (Docket Number: FWS-HQ-NWRS-2022-0106).

    Specifically, we write to express our significant concerns and 
disagreement with the BIDEH proposal given its marked and consequential 
change in direction on the management of the NWRS. We strongly urge the 
rescission of the BIDEH draft policy and manual chapter to initiate a 
new, more thoughtful, inclusive discussion about the management 
objectives and conservation challenges of the NWRS.

    On February 26, 2024, many of the undersigned sent a letter to the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) requesting the 30-day comment 
period be extended by 60 days given that the original comment period 
was insufficient to conduct a thorough review of the extensive 
proposal. Additionally, the letter requested that a meeting with the 
Director be provided to discuss this proposal. We would like to thank 
FWS for delivering on this request by providing an extension of the 
comment period until May 6, 2024, as well as for speaking to many of 
the undersigned during the North American Wildlife and Natural 
Resources Conference in late March.

    However, after more deliberative review, subsequent briefings, and 
Congressional testimony from FWS, we write today to request FWS 
terminate the BIDEH proposal, and then engage partners in a more 
transparent, inclusive, and thoughtful discussion about the needs, 
objectives, and real solutions for the conservation challenges facing 
the NWRS. A recission of the proposal will provide the opportunity for 
a meaningful discussion regarding the scientific data indicating the 
need for this policy and impacts of a change to the current BIDEH 
policy to the management of individual refuges across the country.

    The undersigned appreciated the opportunity to hear from the 
Director as well as senior FWS and NWRS staff in March, however, 
despite this engagement, we do not feel our voices are truly being 
heard, and that there appears to be a significant divergence between 
what we read in the proposed rule and what we are hearing from 
briefings from USFWS Refuge staff in terms of the implication of the 
rule. We believe that the current proposal in its entirety is too far 
adrift to be improved, and unfortunately, the proposal is far-reaching, 
too vague, and in conflict with many refuge purposes to simply be 
amended or altered.

    In conclusion, we strongly urge FWS to entirely rescind the current 
proposal and initiate a new, more inclusive approach as recommended 
above. As you know, many of the partners below are strong advocates for 
the NWRS and move forward to address the real pressing needs of the 
System most notably addressing the challenges of staffing shortages, 
reduced operational capacity and failing infrastructure. We thank you 
for your consideration of this request.

            Sincerely,

        American Woodcock Society     National Shooting Sports 
                                      Foundation

        Archery Trade Association     National Trappers Association

        Backcountry Hunters & 
        Anglers                       National Wild Turkey Federation

        Boone and Crockett Club       Pheasants Forever

        California Waterfowl 
        Association                   Professional Outfitters and 
                                      Guides of America
        Congressional Sportsmen's 
        Foundation                    Quail Forever

        Conservation Force            Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

        Council to Advance Hunting 
        and the Shooting Sports       Ruffed Grouse Society

        Delta Waterfowl               Safari Club International

        Ducks Unlimited               Sportsmen's Alliance

        Houston Safari Club           Theodore Roosevelt Conservation 
                                      Partnership

        Izaak Walton League of 
        America                       Whitetails Unlimited

        Masters of Foxhounds 
        Association                   Wild Sheep Foundation

        National Deer Association     Wildlife Mississippi

        National Rifle Association

                                 ______
                                 

Submission for the Record by Rep. Newhouse

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                               [all]