[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 524, H.R. 615, H.R. 2689, AND
H.R. 2872
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, WILDLIFE AND
FISHERIES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Wednesday, May 10, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-23
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
52-286 WASHINGTON : 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Tom McClintock, CA CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY
Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES
CLIFF BENTZ, OR, Chairman
JEN KIGGANS, VA, Vice Chair
JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Member
Robert J. Wittman, VA Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Mike Levin, CA
Garret Graves, LA Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS Kevin Mullin, CA
Doug LaMalfa, CA Val T. Hoyle, OR
Daniel Webster, FL Seth Magaziner, RI
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR Debbie Dingell, MI
Jerry Carl, AL Ruben Gallego, AZ
Lauren Boebert, CO Joe Neguse, CO
Jen Kiggans, VA Katie Porter, CA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL Ed Case, HI
John Duarte, CA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Harriet M. Hageman, WY
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
----------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Wednesday, May 10, 2023.......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bentz, Hon. Cliff, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon............................................ 2
Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 3
Panel I:
Wittman, Hon. Robert J., a Representative in Congress from
the Commonwealth of Virginia............................... 5
Porter, Hon. Katie, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 6
Rouzer, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from the
State of North Carolina.................................... 7
Statement of Witnesses:
Panel II:
Strickler, Matt, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Fish
and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC............................................. 19
Prepared statement of.................................... 21
Questions submitted for the record....................... 26
Mills, Hon. Darryl, Mayor of Wrightsville Beach, Wrightsville
Beach, North Carolina...................................... 28
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
McClinton, Bryan, Undersecretary, Louisiana Department of
Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge, Louisiana............. 31
Prepared statement of.................................... 32
Whitehouse, Timothy, Executive Director, Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility, Poolesville, Maryland........ 34
Prepared statement of.................................... 35
Adkins, Todd, Vice President of Government Affairs, The
Sportsmen's Alliance, Columbus, Ohio....................... 41
Prepared statement of.................................... 42
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Submissions for the Record by Representative Rouzer
Greater Wilmington, NC, Chamber of Commerce, Letter dated
March 14, 2023......................................... 9
City of Wilmington, NC, City Council, Resolution R-2023-
28, dated March 7, 2023................................ 10
Wrightsville Beach, NC, Chamber of Commerce, Resolution
dated April 9, 2023.................................... 11
Pleasure Island, NC, Chamber of Commerce, Letter dated
March 16, 2023......................................... 12
Carolina Beach Inlet Association, Resolution dated March
8, 2023................................................ 12
New Hanover County, Board of Commissioners, Resolution
dated March 6, 2023.................................... 13
Wilmington-New Hanover, Port, Waterway, & Beach
Commission, Resolution dated April 12, 2023............ 14
Town of Kure Beach, NC, Town Council, Resolution R23-03,
dated March 20, 2023................................... 15
Town of Wrightsville Beach, NC, Board of Aldermen,
Resolution (2023) 2294, dated March 15, 2023........... 16
Town of Carolina Beach, NC, Town Council, Resolution 23-
2279, dated March 14, 2023............................. 17
New Hanover County, Tourism Development Authority,
Resolution dated March 29, 2023........................ 18
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 524, TO AMEND THE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES
ACT TO CREATE AN EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN SHORELINE BORROW SITES; H.R.
615, TO PROHIBIT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE FROM PROHIBITING THE USE OF LEAD AMMUNITION OR TACKLE ON
CERTAIN FEDERAL LAND OR WATER UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE SECRETARY
OF THE INTERIOR AND THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES, ``PROTECTING ACCESS FOR HUNTERS AND ANGLERS ACT OF 2023'';
H.R. 2689, TO IMPROVE THE SERVICE DELIVERY OF AGENCIES AND PUBLIC
PERCEPTION OF AGENCY INTERACTIONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``TRUST IN
GOVERNMENT ACT OF 2023''; AND H.R. 2872, TO AMEND THE PERMANENT
ELECTRONIC DUCK STAMP ACT OF 2013 TO ALLOW STATES TO ISSUE ELECTRONIC
STAMPS UNDER SUCH ACT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
----------
Wednesday, May 10, 2023
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:07 p.m., in
Room 1324 Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Cliff Bentz
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bentz, Wittman, Graves, LaMalfa,
Gonzalez-Colon, Carl, Kiggans, Luna, Westerman; Huffman, Hoyle,
and Porter.
Also present: Representative Rouzer.
Mr. Bentz. The Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and
Fisheries will come to order.
Good afternoon, everyone. I want to welcome Members,
witnesses, and our guests in the audience at today's hearing.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority
Member. I therefore ask unanimous consent that all other
Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing record
if they are submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3(o).
Without objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from North
Carolina, Mr. Rouzer, be allowed to participate in today's
hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
We are here today to consider four legislative measures:
H.R. 524, a bill to amend the Coastal Barrier Resources Act to
create an exemption for certain shoreline borrow sites,
sponsored by Representative Rouzer; H.R. 615, the Protecting
Access for Hunters and Anglers Act of 2023, sponsored by
Representative Wittman; H.R. 2689, the Trust in Government Act
of 2023, sponsored by Representative Porter; and H.R. 2872, a
bill to amend the Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2013
to allow states to issue electronic stamps under such Act, and
for other purposes, sponsored by Representative Graves of
Louisiana.
I now recognize myself for a 5-minute opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CLIFF BENTZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Bentz. Today's hearing is about protecting people's
access to our natural resources and about modernizing slightly
our government.
Mr. Wittman's bill would prohibit a blanket U.S. Fish and
Wildlife ban on lead ammunition and fishing tackle on land
under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior and
Secretary of Agriculture, and instead require the agency to use
a focused, data-based analysis specific in causation if it is
to propose a prohibition, and only if it is in conformance with
applicable State fish and wildlife laws.
This bill is necessary because the Biden administration,
reacting to serial litigants, is suggesting a system-wide, one-
size-fits-all ban. Such a ban on lead ammunition and fishing
tackle will have serious consequences for sportsmen who
contribute to conservation through their purchases: $962
million was generated and made available in Fiscal Year 2023
for wildlife restoration through manufacturer levy and excise
taxes on hunting equipment such as ammunition; $425 million was
generated and made available in Fiscal Year 2023 for fisheries
conservation through manufactured levied excise taxes on
fishing equipment.
Non-lead ammunition alternatives cost, on average, 25
percent more than traditional lead ammunition. Increased costs
will limit sportsmen's participation and will decrease such
revenue for conservation.
State fish and wildlife agencies and sportsmen groups know
that hunters and anglers contribute substantially to
conservation under the user pay system, and they understand why
a blanket ban is unscientific and will drive up costs. That is
why they are supporting Mr. Wittman's bill.
Mr. Graves' bill, H.R. 2872, State fish and wildlife
agencies and sportsmen's groups are also supporting Mr. Graves'
bill that would improve upon how waterfowl hunters obtain
Federal duck stamps. The duck stamp is a user pay system that
has generated over $1 billion for conservation since its
inception.
The current system allows for a hunter to buy a stamp
electronically, but only during a 45-day window. This is an
improvement from the antiquated system, but this bill would
allow a hunter to use the electronic means of purchase for the
entire season. This will make it easier for people to purchase
duck stamps and bring the Duck Stamp Program fully into the
21st century.
Ms. Porter's bill, H.R. 2689, would require that the
Department of the Interior issue permits electronically. This
is a broad mandate that would impact all agencies at the
Department. So, we look forward to hearing how the
Administration would implement this bill.
Mr. Rouzer's bill, H.R. 524, would restore reason to the
process of how we maintain and restore beaches. The 2021 Biden
administration's interpretation of the Coastal Barrier
Resources Act is limiting the ability of coastal communities to
maintain beaches that are critical for habitat conservation and
protection of infrastructure and tourism. Wrightsville Beach,
North Carolina, for example, has been able to use the same
borrow site for 60 years to maintain its beach.
Now, under the Biden administration interpretation, it is
left scrambling to find another, more expensive source. As we
get closer to the hurricane season, communities are looking for
certainty and the ability to address necessary beach
maintenance. This bill would provide that certainty.
I thank the Members for their work on these bills and the
witnesses for testifying today.
I now recognize Ranking Member Huffman for his opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today, there are two bills that I support, one bill that I
would like to support, and I think with some technical
improvements I could, and one that I, unfortunately, must
oppose.
Let's start with Representative Porter's bill, H.R. 2689
and Representative Graves' bill, H.R. 2872. Both of these would
modernize permit access by allowing applicants to do more
online. These bills will help improve access for applicants,
ease paperwork for agencies, and promote opportunities for
recreation and conservation across our country. So, I am happy
to support both of these bills.
Sportsmen and women are important partners in species
protection and habitat conservation, of course. The purchase of
hunting and fishing permits and taxes paid on hunting and
fishing equipment does help pay for maintenance and
conservation of our national wildlife refuges, our public
lands, and State, Federal, and tribal wildlife programs.
However, hunting and fishing must be done in a way that
encourages science-based conservation of wildlife. And that is
precisely my concern with H.R. 615, which wrongfully implies
that recreational access is threatened by Federal, State, and
local regulations that protect wildlife from lead poisoning.
The bill undermines the ability of Federal land managers to
make science-based decisions that protect species by regulating
the use of lead-based tackle and ammunition.
When many wildlife species forage for food, they
inadvertently consume lead as spent shot or tackle that is left
in the environment. This can lead to the accumulation of lead
in animals' tissues, where it causes neurological impairment,
anemia, and immune system impairment, and slowly poisons these
animals until they die.
When one animal dies of lead poisoning, the lead then
bioaccumulates, because it is in its tissue. It becomes a
hazard to scavenging animals. And we see this in species like
the bald eagle and the California condor. In a study from USGS,
nearly half of all surveyed bald eagles exhibited lead
toxicity, and the California condor was nearly driven to
extinction by lead poisoning, leading the Republican governor
of California at the time to implement a lead ammunition
restriction in condor habitat.
So, some states, such as Maine, Vermont, and California
have already instituted lead ammunition and fishing tackle
restrictions. This bill would make it very difficult for
Federal land managers in those states to simply carry out those
same restrictions on Federal lands.
Banning lead products when we know they pose harm is not a
radical idea. We have banned lead in paint, in pipes, and
household items because we know that it is a serious problem,
and scientists are continuing to discover further evidence of
its harm to people and wildlife. There are ample alternatives
to lead-based tackle and ammunition that people can use and
that people do use in areas where lead is banned. No one is
losing recreational activity due to lead bans, but our wildlife
and habitats are safer for it.
Turning to H.R. 524, the Coastal Barrier Resource Act, or
CBRA, this is an example of really successful Federal land
management legislation. When President Reagan signed CBRA in
1982, he explained that the Federal Government was subsidizing
risky development in some areas, and subsequently was on the
hook for disaster costs when storms inevitably hit these
vulnerable regions. He noted that the Act would ``halt the
Federal subsidy spiral'' by discouraging Federal investments in
development on storm-prone coastal land, which, if developed,
would put human lives and property at risk and cost taxpayers
billions of dollars in disaster relief. And he was right. In
the years since CBRA was enacted, taxpayers have saved over
$9.5 billion in disaster costs alone, and the Act has protected
millions of acres of habitat.
I will just close by noting that I am not unsympathetic to
the situation that Mr. Rouzer is trying to address in his
district. I would like to learn a little more about the
specific issue, and see if we can't find ways to more narrowly
target a solution to that problem without unintended
consequences that could compromise CBRA in ways that would be
an unfortunate precedent, and would begin to undo all of the
good bipartisan progress we have had over many, many years with
that important legislation.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back and look forward to
hearing from our witnesses.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Ranking Member Huffman. I will now
introduce our first panel.
As is typical with legislative hearings, the bills'
sponsors are recognized for 5 minutes each to discuss their
bills. With us today, or soon to be joining us, and listed in
order of House seniority are Congressman Rob Wittman;
Congressman Garret Graves; Congressman David Rouzer; and
Congresswoman Katie Porter.
I now recognize Mr. Wittman for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROBERT J. WITTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
bringing up today's bill, Protecting Access for Hunters and
Anglers Act.
Let's make no mistake about it. There are instances where
we see conflict with lead and wildlife that has clearly been
taken care of with banning lead shot for hunting waterfowl. But
the other instances where we are going to carte blanche provide
the opportunity for the agencies to ban lead in all instances.
So, you are using it for fishing tackle? I haven't seen a
single bit of evidence that says that a lead fishing sinker
that is at the bottom of 100 feet of water somehow is going to
be detrimental to the California condor. As far as I know,
California condor can't dive, can't go hundreds of feet down. I
have failed to see how that sort of carte blanche regulation is
going to affect the assertions that the gentleman from
California makes.
I think we ought to make sure that decisions are made based
on sound science, where there is a relationship between the use
of lead, whether it is for ammunition, or for fishing sinkers,
or, for that matter, for lures. Remember, a lot of fishing
lures use lead. It is used in a number of different
circumstances. To just carte blanche say that we are going to
allow agencies to ban lead across the spectrum just doesn't
make good sense.
And remember, there are revenues generated from the sale of
these fishing lures from this ammunition that go to support
wildlife. So, making good public policy decisions requires that
we actually have some thoughtful limits on the Secretary of the
Interior and Secretary of Agriculture that would arbitrarily,
under this current law, make rulings on hunting and fishing
materials.
It also keeps the cost of those from skyrocketing. I mean,
all of those are about also access for our hunters and
fishermen. We want to make sure that they are able to enjoy the
outdoors. Making sure, too, that they have access to these
affordable materials for fishing is incredibly important.
I would prefer that we use lead for fishing lures and for
bullets versus tungsten. I would prefer us use tungsten in our
fighter aircraft versus for fishing sinkers. It just doesn't
seem to be a thoughtful use of those materials, especially
since those critical minerals are in short supply and, by the
way, where we have an Administration that also wants to ban the
mining of those materials. So, we are going to be competing
between fishing sinkers and materials for jet aircraft or for
commercial aircraft. I certainly hope that that is not where
our public policy is going with this.
Mr. Chairman, today is an opportunity for us to hear about
how do we make sure we make thoughtful, science-based decisions
on how we allow different materials like lead to be used in
fishing tackle, in ammunition in ways that are not harmful,
that don't create risks to humans or to animals. I think that
we can do that. To me, it is a very thoughtful way to go about
that. This bill allows us to make sure that there are the
necessary science-based guardrails on how these decisions are
made.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity,
and I encourage my colleagues to support the protecting Access
for Hunters and Anglers Act.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Wittman. The Chair now recognizes
Ms. Porter for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. KATIE PORTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Porter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. A 21st
century nation deserves a 21st century government. Whether you
are a Democrat, Republican, or Independent, we all benefit when
government works the way it is supposed to.
But too many Federal agencies rely on outdated systems not
designed for the people that they are supposed to serve. This
leaves millions looking for help, stuck in a tangled web of
confusing application processes, clunky government websites,
and poor customer support. Long delays and processing times
often follow, adding to the frustration that millions of
Americans feel. It is why so many of them turn to us, their
Member of Congress, for help. Our casework teams work hard
every day to cut through the red tape, but it shouldn't have to
come to that.
When we fail to modernize government, we are wasting tax
dollars on inefficiencies, and we are plunging Americans' low
trust in government even lower. That is why I proposed the
Trust in Government Act of 2023. This bill would require over
two dozen Federal agencies, including those in the jurisdiction
of this Committee, to modernize how they bring their services
to the American people. It outlines over 30 reforms to reduce
waste, improve confidence in government, and get our tax
dollars to work better for us. These reforms codify and build
on President Biden's Executive Order 14058, signed in December
2021. They touch on everything from reducing passenger wait
times at airports to creating a centralized system for student
loan repayments.
I applaud the Administration for prioritizing a government
built for the people, and I am happy that many agencies are
complying with the Executive Order and making significant
progress on these reforms.
Now we need to codify the Executive Order to keep customer
experience at the forefront of our government. This is
something we should be able to agree on, regardless of party
affiliation, and that is why I am happy and grateful to see
real interest in this from across the aisle.
The portion of the bill relevant to today's hearing is a
provision to modernize the Federal permitting process. It would
require the Department of the Interior to create a centralized
electronic portal for accepting and processing permit
applications.
Republicans' No. 1 priority this Congress is permitting
reform. And let me tell you, we are not going to get the
efficiency that both sides of the aisle want while protecting
the environment unless we bring permits online. My bill would
create the central repository that would get the process moving
faster. It doesn't require the Department to bring all of its
wide-ranging permits online at once, but it would create a one-
stop-shop and get it scaling across the Department of the
Interior.
How do we know that this is possible? The Executive Order
is already working. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
brought over 80 types of permits online, so expanding this
platform to be open Department-wide should be a no-brainer.
This simple move would increase public transparency and reduce
the amount of paperwork mailed to the agency, helping to reduce
processing times.
At a time when debate around permitting reform has become
so charged, it is really encouraging to see Republicans and
Democrats can find something to agree on. It is going to take
all of us to modernize public service and fix this crisis in
government confidence. I encourage my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle to support this legislation.
I yield back.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Ms. Porter. The Chair recognizes Mr.
Rouzer for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAVID ROUZER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
Ranking Member. I appreciate the opportunity to highlight the
importance of H.R. 524 to amend the Coastal Barrier Resources
Act to create an exemption for certain shoreline borrow sites.
Wrightsville Beach, which is in my district, serves as one
of North Carolina's most popular beaches, hosting visitors from
all across the country and driving the significant job growth
and economic activity for our local communities. We also count
on a strong, robust coastline as the first line of defense
against powerful storms. And it has worked by limiting the
amount of flooding and damage inflicted.
Now for years, the process of replacing the sand on
Wrightsville Beach, or beach renourishment, as we say, has
worked exceptionally well, from all perspectives. As we all
know, most beaches naturally erode over time. In the case of
Wrightsville Beach, when the sand is added to the shore it
solidifies the dunes and berms while protecting the property
behind it. Over time, the sediment guided by the current
deposits sand from the beach to Masonboro Inlet, just to the
south.
[Slide.]
Mr. Rouzer. Abigail, can you come and show everybody where
Wrightsville Beach is. So, there is Wrightsville Beach.
Masonboro Inlet, point to that. That is where Masonboro
Inlet is. That is where the sand naturally migrates to, and
then the sand is taken from the inlet and put back on the
beach. I just wanted you to see the visual, because it really
helps.
Now, the green area here, which I am going to talk about in
a minute, is the CBRA zone. So, I just want everybody to get a
feel for what I am describing.
Every 4 years, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dredges the
inlet that you are looking at right there of its extra sand and
returns it to Wrightsville Beach. For decades, for more than 50
years, in fact, Masonboro Inlet has served as a reliable,
ecologically friendly borrow site for Wrightsville Beach.
As you know, CBRA zones were established by the Coastal
Barrier Resources Act of 1982. This law prohibits the Federal
Government from direct or indirect investment in these zones,
as established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The
Masonboro Inlet exists within that coastal barrier resource
system unit L09, the 50-plus-year borrowing source for
Wrightsville Beach, which you can see on the map. With
enactment of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act, an exemption
was later made administratively to permit Wrightsville Beach to
continue to use this borrow site. The Corps made permanent this
exemption in 1998.
In 2019, this issue came up for review, and then-Secretary
David Bernhardt reaffirmed this exemption. However, the Biden
administration later reversed it, with the effect of
prohibiting sand from being used from its traditional source,
despite the decades of precedent.
Now, as it currently stands, Wrightsville Beach is long
past its due date for much-needed renourishment. Seasonal
storms have caused flooding to occur more quickly and more
easily than in the past. In fact, if Wrightsville Beach
experiences one more major storm, the devastation to property
could be catastrophic, costing taxpayers as well as the
National Flood Insurance Program significantly more.
[Slide.]
Mr. Rouzer. And as you can see from the picture behind me,
at the very top is a bench. So, you can see how much the sand
has eroded. It is quite remarkable.
Now show them the picture with you, Abigail. Oh, you didn't
bring that one. OK.
Well, anyhow, the point there is there is a tremendous
amount of sand that has been lost. And the only option left is
to use an offshore borrow site, but this will only disrupt the
natural flow of sediment deposit, disturb the current
ecosystem, and cost significantly more.
Furthermore, Masonboro Inlet is going to continue to be
dredged for navigational purposes, so it makes no sense not to
use that sand for its traditional purpose of renourishing
Wrightsville Beach.
Ironically, the offshore site identified for the beach has
been found to have thousands and thousands of tires interlinked
by rusty old chains that the Fish and Wildlife Service put out
in the 1970s to try to create a fish estuary. Imagine that.
Filtering through tires and other debris to provide sand for
renourishment obviously creates its own set of problems.
So, H.R. 524, the long and the short of it is, it fixes
this problem in a very common-sense fashion by creating the
exemption, making that permanent, which has been practiced for
50-plus years. It saves taxpayer dollars. It does not disrupt
the ecological environment, which by the way, the birds love it
there at Masonboro Inlet. We have an ecological system that
works really well. There is no need to disturb it.
And Mr. Chairman, additionally, I have 11 local officials
and entities that have sent letters of support or have passed
resolutions of support for this bill. I ask unanimous consent
to have those inserted for the record.
Mr. Bentz. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Rouzer
Greater Wilmington, NC
Chamber of Commerce
March 14, 2023
Hon. David Rouzer
U.S. House of Representatives
2333 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman Rouzer:
On behalf of the board of directors and membership of the Greater
Wilmington Chamber of Commerce, I am writing today to thank you for
your continued service to our community. As you know, the Wilmington
regional economy is quite diverse and includes manufacturing, financial
services, technology, logistics and distribution and many other
sectors. As diverse as our economy is, tourism and hospitality remain
large contributors to the number of jobs and economic impact in New
Hanover County. We consider our beaches a treasure, not only to our
economy, but also to our quality of life. Our beaches support job
growth as well as attracting and retaining talent.
We appreciate your introduction of H.R. 524 which would exempt from
CBRA inlet borrow sites that have been used for at least 15 years. Two
projects off the coast of New Hanover County, Masonboro Inlet and
Carolina Beach Inlet, would be eligible for this exemption. The
exemption would allow the projects to return to the successful, cost-
effective model previously used that provided healthy coastal
infrastructure for decades.
The Wilmington Chamber of Commerce supports the passage of H.R.
524.
Again, thank you for being a strong representative for our
community. We always enjoy working with you.
Sincerely,
Natalie Haskins English, CCE
President and CEO
______
CITY OF WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION R-2023-28
Introduced By: Anthony N. Caudle, City Manager
Resolution in Support of Allowing Carolina Beach and Wrightsville Beach
to Use Traditional Sand Sources for Beach Renourishment
LEGISLATIVE INTENT/PURPOSE:
WHEREAS, Wilmington's neighboring coastal infrastructure is critical to
protecting public and private interests from storms and other natural
disasters; and
WHEREAS, Wrightsville Beach, Carolina Beach, and Kure Beach require
routine Coastal Storm Damage Reduction (``CSDR'') projects to maintain
their engineered shoreline templates, which provide essential
protection to minimize damage caused by hurricanes and other storms;
and
WHEREAS, Wilmington supports federal participation in CSDR projects;
and
WHEREAS, projects designed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for
Wrightsville Beach and Carolina Beach have utilized engineered inlet
borrow sites for sand from Masonboro Inlet and Carolina Beach Inlet for
more than 50 years; and
WHEREAS, sand placed on the beach strands is transported, through
natural coastal processes, back into the inlet borrow sites, resulting
in an environmentally friendly, cost-effective project that reuses and
recycles beach-quality sand; and
WHEREAS, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (``CBRA'') of 1982 created
zones identified for restriction of federal funds to support
development; and
WHEREAS, Masonboro Inlet and Carolina Beach Inlet are inside CBRA
zones, and the adjacent beach strands are not, resulting in a recent
interpretation that advised that federal funds could not be used to
support beach nourishment projects that use inlets within CBRA zones as
borrow sources for beaches outside CBRA zones; and
WHEREAS, the interpretation has resulted in projects for Wrightsville
Beach and Carolina Beach that would use borrow sources in the Atlantic
Ocean, resulting in increased costs and the potential for harm to the
environment; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Atlantic Ocean borrow site for Wrightsville Beach
is adjacent to an area of a remnant artificial reef created in the
1970s using hundreds of thousands of tires, resulting in a potentially
compromised borrow site that would significantly increase costs and
harm to the environment; and
WHEREAS, the offshore site used for Carolina Beach is the approved
borrow site for Kure Beach, resulting in a shorter life span of the
site if it is continued to be used to nourish both beaches; and
WHEREAS, by not utilizing the inlet borrow sites, Masonboro Inlet and
Carolina Beach Inlet will continue to be infilled by sand that
naturally flows to them, resulting in increased costs that would be
incurred to maintain navigable inlets, while also impacting the
region's programmatic approach to beach and inlet dredge material
management; and
WHEREAS, Congressman David Rouzer has introduced H.R. 524, which would
exempt inlet borrow sources that were used to support beach nourishment
projects for at least 15 years from CBRA;and
WHEREAS, Masonboro Inlet and Carolina Beach Inlet would be eligible for
this exemption, should H.R. 524 become law, allowing the projects to
return to the successful, cost-effective, model that provided healthy
coastal infrastructure for decades.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
THAT, the Wilmington City Council supports the passage of H.R. 524.
Adopted at a regular meeting on March 7, 2023
Bill Saffo, Mayor
ATTEST: Penelope Spicer-Sidbury, City Clerk
______
WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Wrightsville Beach Chamber of Commerce support of US House Bill 524
WHEREAS, Wrightsville Beach, NC public coastal infrastructure is
critical to the public safety interests, it's beaches financial assets,
and economy and must be protected from the effects of storms and other
natural disasters and to the whole of New Hanover County, North
Carolina's wellbeing; and
WHEREAS, Coastal tourism is a major economic generator for Wrightsville
Beach in New Hanover County, providing recreational opportunities for
North Carolinian's and tourists from across the nation
WHEREAS, Wrightsville Beach, Carolina Beach and Kure Beach require
routine Coastal Storm Damage Mitigation projects to maintain their
engineered shoreline templates that provide essential protection to
minimize damage caused by hurricanes and other storms; and
WHEREAS, projects designed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for
Wrightsville Beach have utilized Corps. of Engineers designed and
constructed navigational structures to protect inlet access and provide
for inland borrow sites for sand from the Masonboro Inlet for more than
50 years; and
WHEREAS, the sand placed on the Wrightsville Beach strand is
transported, through the natural coastal north south sand migration
processes, back into the inlet borrow sites, resulting in an
environmentally friendly, cost-effective project that reuses and
recycles beach quality sand at the most cost effective process; and
WHEREAS, Masonboro Inlet is inside CBRA zones and the adjacent beach
strand is not, resulting in a recent interpretation that advised that
federal funds could not be used to support Wrightsville Beach
nourishment projects that use inlets within its CBRA zone as borrow
sources for the beach outside CBRA zone; and
WHEREAS, the interpretation has resulted in projects for Wrightsville
Beach that would use borrow off shore sites, resulting in increased
costs and the potential for more harm to the environment; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Atlantic Ocean borrow site for Wrightsville Beach
is adjacent to an area of a remnant artificial reef created in the
1970s using hundreds of thousands of tires, which at the time of
creation was approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish and
Wildlife, and the Audubon Society, local governmental agencies, and
other officials resulting in a potentially compromised borrow site that
would significantly increase costs and harm to the environment; and
WHEREAS, by not utilizing the inlet borrow sites, Masonboro Inlet
continues to be infilled by sand that naturally flows to them therefore
resulting in major increased costs that would be incurred to maintain
navigable inlets and the dumping the inlet dredged sand on spoil
islands, while also impacting the region's programmatic approach to
beach and inlet dredge material management; and
WHEREAS, the loss of the critical exemption ruling protecting the
onshore borrow site is caused by a legislative change in law years
after the Corps. of Engineers design of Masonboro Inlet navigation and
sand saving infrastructure jetties on the North and South sides of the
inlet;
WHEREAS, Congressman David Rouzer has introduced H.R. 524, which would
restore the exemption from CBRA inlet borrow sources that were used to
support beach nourishment projects for decades; and
WHEREAS, Wrightsville Beach with its Masonboro Inlet would be eligible
for continuance of its former 50 year exemption should H.R. 524 become
law, allowing the projects to return to the successful, cost-effective
model that provided healthy coastal infrastructure for decades.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Wrightsville Beach Chamber of
Commerce Board of Directors supports the passage of H.R. 524.
ADOPTED this 9th day of April, 2023.
Susan K Bulluck, Chairman
______
Pleasure Island
Chamber of Commerce
March 16, 2023
Dear Congressman Rouzer:
On behalf of the Pleasure Island Chamber of Commerce, I am writing
to express our support of H.R. 524.
The PICC believes this piece of legislation to play a vital role in
the coastal infrastructure in New Hanover County. In addition, this
resolution allows for the continued coastal storm damage mitigation
that is critical to protecting public and private interests from storms
and other natural disasters. Our local tourism economy and a majority
of our 240+ business members count on these current protections for the
ensured health of their businesses.
For these reasons, the PICC extends our support of H.R. 524 voted
on by our Board of Directors.
Sincerely and respectfully,
James DeGilio,
Executive Director
______
CAROLINA BEACH INLET ASSOCIATION
CAROLINA BEACH, NC
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 524
WHEREAS, New Hanover County's coastal infrastructure is critical to
protecting public and private interests from storms and other natural
disasters and to North Carolina's tourism economy; and
WHEREAS, Wrightsville Beach, Carolina Beach and Kure Beach require
routine Coastal Storm Damage Mitigation projects to maintain their
engineered shoreline templates that provide essential protection to
minimize damage caused by hurricanes and other storms; and
WHEREAS, New Hanover County supports federal participation in Coastal
Storm Damage Reduction (CSDR) projects; and
WHEREAS, projects designed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for
Wrightsville Beach and Carolina Beach have utilized engineered inlet
borrow sites for sand from Masonboro Inlet and Carolina Beach Inlet for
more than 50 years; and
WHEREAS, the sand placed on the beach strands are transported, through
natural coastal processes, back into the inlet borrow sites, resulting
in an environmentally friendly, cost-effective project that reuses and
recycles beach quality sand; and
WHEREAS, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982 created zones
identified for restriction of federal funds to support development; and
WHEREAS, Masonboro Inlet and Carolina Beach Inlet are inside CBRA zones
and the adjacent beach strands are not, resulting in a recent
interpretation that advised that federal funds could not be used to
support beach nourishment projects that use inlets within CBRA zones as
borrow sources for beaches outside CBRA zones; and
WHEREAS, the interpretation has resulted in projects for Wrightsville
Beach and Carolina Beach that would use borrow sources in the Atlantic
Ocean, resulting in increased costs and the potential for more harm to
the environment; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Atlantic Ocean borrow site for Wrightsville Beach
is adjacent to an area of a remnant artificial reef created in the
1970s using hundreds of thousands of tires, resulting in a potentially
compromised borrow site that would significantly increase costs and
harm to the environment; and
WHEREAS, the offshore site used for Carolina Beach is the approved
borrow site for Kure Beach, resulting in a shorter life span of the
site if it is continued to be used to nourish both beaches; and
WHEREAS, by not utilizing the inlet borrow sites, Masonboro Inlet and
Carolina Beach Inlet will continue to be infilled by sand that
naturally flows to them, resulting in increased costs that would be
incurred to maintain navigable inlets while also impacting the region's
programmatic approach to beach and inlet dredge material management;
and
WHEREAS, Congressman David Rouzer has introduced H.R. 524, which would
exempt from CBRA inlet borrow sources that were used to support beach
nourishment projects for at least 15 years; and
WHEREAS, Masonboro Inlet and Carolina Beach Inlet would be eligible for
this exemption should H.R. 524 become law, allowing the projects to
return to the successful, cost-effective model that provided healthy
coastal infrastructure for decades.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the New Hanover County Board of
Commissioners supports the passage of H.R. 524.
ADOPTED this the 8th day of March, 2023.
Carlton A. Brown,
President
______
NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 524
WHEREAS, New Hanover County's coastal infrastructure is critical to
protecting public and private interests from storms and other natural
disasters and to North Carolina's tourism economy; and
WHEREAS, Wrightsville Beach, Carolina Beach and Kure Beach require
routine Coastal Storm Damage Mitigation projects to maintain their
engineered shoreline templates that provide essential protection to
minimize damage caused by hurricanes and other storms; and
WHEREAS, New Hanover County supports federal participation in Coastal
Storm Damage Reduction (CSDR) projects; and
WHEREAS, projects designed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for
Wrightsville Beach and Carolina Beach have utilized engineered inlet
borrow sites for sand from Masonboro Inlet and Carolina Beach Inlet for
more than 50 years; and
WHEREAS, the sand placed on the beach strands are transported, through
natural coastal processes, back into the inlet borrow sites, resulting
in an environmentally friendly, cost-effective project that reuses and
recycles beach quality sand; and
WHEREAS, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982 created zones
identified for restriction of federal funds to support development; and
WHEREAS, Masonboro Inlet and Carolina Beach Inlet are inside CBRA zones
and the adjacent beach strands are not, resulting in a recent
interpretation that advised that federal funds could not be used to
support beach nourishment projects that use inlets within CBRA zones as
borrow sources for beaches outside CBRA zones; and
WHEREAS, the interpretation has resulted in projects for Wrightsville
Beach and Carolina Beach that would use borrow sources in the Atlantic
Ocean, resulting in increased costs and the potential for more harm to
the environment; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Atlantic Ocean borrow site for Wrightsville Beach
is adjacent to an area of a remnant artificial reef created in the
1970s using hundreds of thousands of tires, resulting in a potentially
compromised borrow site that would significantly increase costs and
harm to the environment; and
WHEREAS, the offshore site used for Carolina Beach is the approved
borrow site for Kure Beach, resulting in a shorter life span of the
site if it is continued to be used to nourish both beaches; and
WHEREAS, by not utilizing the inlet borrow sites, Masonboro Inlet and
Carolina Beach Inlet will continue to be infilled by sand that
naturally flows to them, resulting in increased costs that would be
incurred to maintain navigable inlets while also impacting the region's
programmatic approach to beach and inlet dredge material management;
and
WHEREAS, Congressman David Rouzer has introduced H.R. 524, which would
exempt from CBRA inlet borrow sources that were used to support beach
nourishment projects for at least 15 years; and
WHEREAS, Masonboro Inlet and Carolina Beach Inlet would be eligible for
this exemption should H.R. 524 become law, allowing the projects to
return to the successful, cost-effective model that provided healthy
coastal infrastructure for decades.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the New Hanover County Board of
Commissioners supports the passage of H.R. 524.
ADOPTED this the 6th day of March, 2023.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY ATTEST:
William E. Rivenbark, Chair Kymberleigh G. Crowell, Clerk
______
WILMINGTON-NEW HANOVER
PORT, WATERWAY & BEACH COMMISSION
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 524
WHEREAS, New Hanover County's coastal infrastructure is critical to
protecting public and private interests from storms and other natural
disasters and to North Carolina's tourism economy; and
WHEREAS, Wrightsville Beach, Carolina Beach and Kure Beach require
routine Coastal Storm Damage Mitigation projects to maintain their
engineered shoreline templates that provide essential protection to
minimize damage caused by hurricanes and other storms; and
WHEREAS, New Hanover County supports federal participation in Coastal
Storm Damage Reduction (CSDR) projects; and
WHEREAS, projects designed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for
Wrightsville Beach and Carolina Beach have utilized engineered inlet
borrow sites for sand from Masonboro Inlet and Carolina Beach Inlet for
more than 50 years; and
WHEREAS, the sand placed on the beach strands are transported, through
natural coastal processes, back into the inlet borrow sites, resulting
in an environmentally friendly, cost-effective project that reuses and
recycles beach quality sand; and
WHEREAS, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982 created zones
identified for restriction of federal funds to support development; and
WHEREAS, Masonboro Inlet and Carolina Beach Inlet are inside CBRA zones
and the adjacent beach strands are not, resulting in a recent
interpretation that advised that federal funds could not be used to
support beach nourishment projects that use inlets within CBRA zones as
borrow sources for beaches outside CBRA zones; and
WHEREAS, the interpretation has resulted in projects for Wrightsville
Beach and Carolina Beach that would use borrow sources in the Atlantic
Ocean, resulting in increased costs and the potential for more harm to
the environment; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Atlantic Ocean borrow site for Wrightsville Beach
is adjacent to an area of a remnant artificial reef created in the
1970s using hundreds of thousands of tires, resulting in a potentially
compromised borrow site that would significantly increase costs and
harm to the environment; and
WHEREAS, the offshore site used for Carolina Beach is the approved
borrow site for Kure Beach, resulting in a shorter life span of the
site if it is continued to be used to nourish both beaches; and
WHEREAS, by not utilizing the inlet borrow sites, Masonboro Inlet and
Carolina Beach Inlet will continue to be infilled by sand that
naturally flows to them, resulting in increased costs that would be
incurred to maintain navigable inlets while also impacting the region's
programmatic approach to beach and inlet dredge material management;
and
WHEREAS, Congressman David Rouzer has introduced H.R. 524, which would
exempt from CBRA inlet borrow sources that were used to support beach
nourishment projects for at least 15 years; and
WHEREAS, Masonboro Inlet and Carolina Beach Inlet would be eligible for
this exemption should H.R. 524 become law, allowing the projects to
return to the successful, cost-effective model that provided healthy
coastal infrastructure for decades.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the New Hanover County Port,
Waterway & Beach Commission supports the passage of H.R. 524.
ADOPTED this the 12th day of March, 2023.
Port, Waterway & Beach Commission
Dennis Barbour, Chair
______
TOWN COUNCIL
TOWN OF KURE BEACH, NC
RESOLUTION R23-03
A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 524
WHEREAS, New Hanover County's coastal infrastructure is critical to
protecting public and private interests from storms and other natural
disasters and to North Carolina's tourism economy; and
WHEREAS, Wrightsville Beach, Carolina Beach and Kure Beach require
routine Coastal Storm Damage Mitigation projects to maintain their
engineered shoreline templates that provide essential protection to
minimize damage caused by hurricanes and other storms; and
WHEREAS, Kure Beach supports federal participation in Coastal Storm
Damage Reduction (CSDR) projects; and
WHEREAS, projects designed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for
Wrightsville Beach and Carolina Beach have utilized engineered inlet
borrow sites for sand from Masonboro Inlet and Carolina Beach Inlet for
more than 50 years; and
WHEREAS, the sand placed on the beach strands are transported, through
natural coastal processes, back into the inlet borrow sites, resulting
in an environmentally friendly, cost-effective project that reuses and
recycles beach quality sand; and
WHEREAS, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982 created zones
identified for restriction of federal funds to support development; and
WHEREAS, Masonboro Inlet and Carolina Beach Inlet are inside CBRA zones
and the adjacent beach strands are not, resulting in a recent
interpretation that advised that federal funds could not be used to
support beach nourishment projects that use inlets within CBRA zones as
borrow sources for beaches outside CBRA zones; and
WHEREAS, the interpretation has resulted in projects for Wrightsville
Beach and Carolina Beach that would use borrow sources in the Atlantic
Ocean, resulting in increased costs and the potential for more harm to
the environment; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Atlantic Ocean borrow site for Wrightsville Beach
is adjacent to an area of a remnant artificial reef created in the
1970s using hundreds of thousands of tires, resulting in a potentially
compromised borrow site that would significantly increase costs and
harm to the environment; and
WHEREAS, the offshore site used for Carolina Beach is the approved
borrow site for Kure Beach, resulting in a shorter life span of the
site if it is continued to be used to nourish both beaches; and
WHEREAS, by not utilizing the inlet borrow sites, Masonboro Inlet and
Carolina Beach Inlet will continue to be infilled by sand that
naturally flows to them, resulting in increased costs that would be
incurred to maintain navigable inlets while also impacting the region's
programmatic approach to beach and inlet dredge material management;
and
WHEREAS, Congressman David Rouzer has introduced H.R. 524, which would
exempt from CBRA inlet borrow sources that were used to support beach
nourishment projects for at least 15 years; and
WHEREAS, Masonboro Inlet and Carolina Beach Inlet would be eligible for
this exemption should H.R. 524 become law, allowing the projects to
return to the successful, cost-effective model that provided healthy
coastal infrastructure for decades.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Kure Beach Town Council do hereby supports the
passage of H.R. 524.
Adopted by the Kure Beach Town Council this 20th day of March, 2023.
Craig Bloszinsky, Mayor Attest: Mandy Sanders, Clerk
______
TOWN OF WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NC
BOARD OF ALDERMEN
RESOLUTION NO. (2023) 2294
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE TOWN OF WRIGHTSVILLE
BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA
SUPPORTING THE PASSAGE OF H.R. 524
WHEREAS, New Hanover County's coastal infrastructure is critical to
protecting public and private interests from storms and other natural
disasters and to North Carolina's tourism economy; and
WHEREAS, Wrightsville Beach, Carolina Beach and Kure Beach require
routine Coastal Storm Damage Mitigation projects to maintain their
engineered shoreline templates that provide essential protection to
minimize damage caused by hurricanes and other storms; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Wrightsville Beach supports federal participation
in Coastal Storm Damage Reduction (CSDR) projects; and
WHEREAS, projects designed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for
Wrightsville Beach and Carolina Beach have utilized engineered inlet
borrow sites for sand from Masonboro Inlet and Carolina Beach Inlet for
more than 50 years; and
WHEREAS, the sand placed on the beach strands are transported, through
natural coastal processes, back into the inlet borrow sites, resulting
in an environmentally friendly, cost-effective project that reuses and
recycles beach quality sand; and
WHEREAS, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982 created zones
identified for restriction of federal funds to support development; and
WHEREAS, Masonboro Inlet and Carolina Beach Inlet are inside CBRA zones
and the adjacent beach strands are not, resulting in a recent
interpretation that advised that federal funds could not be used to
support beach nourishment projects that use inlets within CBRA zones as
borrow sources for beaches outside CBRA zones; and
WHEREAS, the interpretation has resulted in projects for Wrightsville
Beach and Carolina Beach that would use borrow sources in the Atlantic
Ocean, resulting in increased costs and the potential for more harm to
the environment; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Atlantic Ocean borrow site for Wrightsville Beach
is adjacent to an area of a remnant artificial reef created in the
1970s using hundreds of thousands of tires, resulting in a potentially
compromised borrow site that would significantly increase costs and
harm to the environment; and
WHEREAS, the offshore site used for Carolina Beach is the approved
borrow site for Kure Beach, resulting in a shorter life span of the
site if it is continued to be used to nourish both beaches; and
WHEREAS, by not utilizing the inlet borrow sites, Masonboro Inlet and
Carolina Beach Inlet will continue to be infilled by sand that
naturally flows to them, resulting in increased costs that would be
incurred to maintain navigable inlets while also impacting the region's
programmatic approach to beach and inlet dredge material management;
and
WHEREAS, Congressman David Rouzer has introduced H.R. 524, which would
exempt from CBRA inlet borrow sources that were used to support beach
nourishment projects for at least 15 years; and
WHEREAS, Masonboro Inlet and Carolina Beach Inlet would be eligible for
this exemption should H.R. 524 become law, allowing the projects to
return to the successful, cost-effective model that provided healthy
coastal infrastructure for decades.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Aldermen of the Town
of Wrightsville Beach supports the passage of H.R. 524.
ADOPTED this the 15th day of March, 2023.
ATTEST:
F. Darryl Mills, Mayor Lance G. Heater, Clerk
______
TOWN OF CAROLINA BEACH, NC
TOWN COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 23-2279
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 524
WHEREAS, New Hanover County's coastal infrastructure is critical to
protecting public and private interests from storms and other natural
disasters and to North Carolina's tourism economy; and
WHEREAS, Wrightsville Beach, Carolina Beach and Kure Beach require
routine Coastal Storm Damage Mitigation projects to maintain their
engineered shoreline templates that provide essential protection to
minimize damage caused by hurricanes and other storms; and
WHEREAS, New Hanover County and Carolina Beach supports federal
participation in Coastal Storm Damage Reduction (CSDR) projects; and
WHEREAS, projects designed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for
Wrightsville Beach and Carolina Beach have utilized engineered inlet
borrow sites for sand from Masonboro Inlet and Carolina Beach Inlet for
more than 50 years; and
WHEREAS, the sand placed on the beach strands are transported, through
natural coastal processes, back into the inlet borrow sites, resulting
in an environmentally friendly, cost-effective project that reuses and
recycles beach quality sand; and
WHEREAS, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982 created zones
identified for restriction of federal funds to support development; and
WHEREAS, Masonboro Inlet and Carolina Beach Inlet are inside CBRA zones
and the adjacent beach strands are not, resulting in a recent
interpretation that advised that federal funds could not be used to
support beach nourishment projects that use inlets within CBRA zones as
borrow sources for beaches outside CBRA zones; and
WHEREAS, the interpretation has resulted in projects for Wrightsville
Beach and Carolina Beach that would use borrow sources in the Atlantic
Ocean, resulting in increased costs and the potential for more harm to
the environment; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Atlantic Ocean borrow site for Wrightsville Beach
is adjacent to an area of a remnant artificial reef created in the
1970s using hundreds of thousands of tires, resulting in a potentially
compromised borrow site that would significantly increase costs and
harm to the environment; and
WHEREAS, the offshore site used for Carolina Beach is the approved
borrow site for Kure Beach, resulting in a shorter life span of the
site if it is continued to be used to nourish both beaches; and
WHEREAS, by not utilizing the inlet borrow sites, Masonboro Inlet and
Carolina Beach Inlet will continue to be infilled by sand that
naturally flows to them, resulting in increased costs that would be
incurred to maintain navigable inlets while also impacting the region's
programmatic approach to beach and inlet dredge material management;
and
WHEREAS, Congressman David Rouzer has introduced H.R. 524, which would
exempt from CBRA inlet borrow sources that were used to support beach
nourishment projects for at least 15 years; and
WHEREAS, Masonboro Inlet and Carolina Beach Inlet would be eligible for
this exemption should H.R. 524 become law, allowing the projects to
return to the successful, cost-effective model that provided healthy
coastal infrastructure for decades.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Carolina Beach Town Council
supports the passage of H.R. 524.
ADOPTED this the 14th day of March, 2023.
TOWN OF CAROLINA BEACH ATTEST:
Albert L. Barbee, Mayor Kimberlee Ward, Clerk
______
NEW HANOVER COUNTY TOURISM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 524
WHEREAS, New Hanover County's coastal infrastructure is critical to
protecting public and private interests from storms and other natural
disasters and to North Carolina's tourism economy; and
WHEREAS, Coastal tourism is a major economic generator for New Hanover
County, providing more than $930 million in annual visitor spending and
nearly $730 million in state/local taxes. Tourism in New Hanover County
also supports more than 6,142 jobs.
WHEREAS, wide sandy beaches are a major draw that attracts and inspires
people to visit New Hanover County.
WHEREAS, Wrightsville Beach, Carolina Beach and Kure Beach require
routine Coastal Storm Damage Mitigation projects to maintain their
engineered shoreline templates that provide essential protection to
minimize damage caused by hurricanes and other storms; and
WHEREAS, projects designed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for
Wrightsville Beach and Carolina Beach have utilized engineered inlet
borrow sites for sand from Masonboro Inlet and Carolina Beach Inlet for
more than 50 years; and
WHEREAS, the sand placed on the beach strands are transported, through
natural coastal processes, back into the inlet borrow sites, resulting
in an environmentally friendly, cost-effective project that reuses and
recycles beach quality sand; and
WHEREAS, Masonboro Inlet and Carolina Beach Inlet are inside CBRA zones
and the adjacent beach strands are not, resulting in a recent
interpretation that advised that federal funds could not be used to
support beach nourishment projects that use inlets within CBRA zones as
borrow sources for beaches outside CBRA zones; and
WHEREAS, the interpretation has resulted in projects for Wrightsville
Beach and Carolina Beach that would use borrow sources in the Atlantic
Ocean, resulting in increased costs and the potential for more harm to
the environment; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Atlantic Ocean borrow site for Wrightsville Beach
is adjacent to an area of a remnant artificial reef created in the
1970s using hundreds of thousands of tires, resulting in a potentially
compromised borrow site that would significantly increase costs and
harm to the environment; and
WHEREAS, the offshore site used for Carolina Beach is the approved
borrow site for Kure Beach, resulting in a shorter life span of the
site if it is continued to be used to nourish both beaches; and
WHEREAS, by not utilizing the inlet borrow sites, Masonboro Inlet and
Carolina Beach Inlet will continue to be infilled by sand that
naturally flows to them, resulting in increased costs that would be
incurred to maintain navigable inlets while also impacting the region's
programmatic approach to beach and inlet dredge material management;
and
WHEREAS, Congressman David Rouzer has introduced H.R. 524, which would
exempt from CBRA inlet borrow sources that were used to support beach
nourishment projects for at least 15 years; and
WHEREAS, Masonboro Inlet and Carolina Beach Inlet would be eligible for
this exemption should H.R. 524 become law, allowing the projects to
return to the successful, cost-effective model that provided healthy
coastal infrastructure for decades.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the New Hanover County Tourism
Development Authority Board of Directors supports the passage of H.R.
524.
ADOPTED this the 29th day of March, 2023.
ATTEST:
Nicole Jones, Chair Kim Hufham, CEO
______
Mr. Rouzer. With that, I yield back my time.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you for testifying. I will introduce our
second panel.
Mr. Matthew Strickler, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish
and Wildlife and Parks at the Department of the Interior in
Washington, DC; The Honorable Darryl Mills, Mayor of
Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina; Mr. Bryan McClinton,
Undersecretary for the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and
Fisheries in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Mr. Timothy Whitehouse,
Executive Director of Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility in Poolesville, Maryland; and Mr. Todd Adkins,
Vice President of Government Affairs for the Sportsmen's
Alliance, based in Columbus, Ohio.
Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules,
they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but their
entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
To begin your testimony, please press the talk button on
the microphone.
We use timing lights. When you begin, the light will turn
green. When you have 1 minute remaining, the light will turn
yellow. And at the end of 5 minutes, the light will turn red,
and I will ask you to please complete your statement.
I will also allow all witnesses to testify before Member
questioning.
I now recognize Mr. Strickler for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MATT STRICKLER, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, FISH AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Strickler. Good afternoon, Chairman Bentz, Ranking
Member Huffman, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is
Matt Strickler, and I serve as Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Fish and Wildlife and Parks at the United States Department of
the Interior. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on
four bills related to wildlife conservation, hunting and
fishing, and delivery of government services.
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is
working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish,
wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit
of the American people. That mission drives the Service's
position on these bills, which I will discuss briefly.
I will begin with H.R. 524, which would amend the Coastal
Barrier Resources Act, or CBRA, to create an exemption for
certain shoreline borrow sites.
When President Reagan signed CBRA into law in 1982, the
statute designated relatively undeveloped coastal barriers as
part of the Coastal Barrier Resource System. CBRA restricts
Federal subsidies that encourage development in these risky
areas that are vulnerable to storm damage and erosion. These
sites serve as natural storm buffers, provide habitat for fish
and wildlife species, support recreational and commercial
fisheries, improve water quality, and provide tourism
opportunities.
It is important to note that CBRA does not prohibit
activities such as those contemplated in the legislation before
you today. States, localities, and private entities are free to
use their resources to fund such work. But CBRA protects
Federal taxpayers from exposure to the great risk and expense
of developing in these hazard-prone areas.
H.R. 524 would amend CBRA to allow the use of Federal funds
to dredge sand within the system and use that sand for beach
nourishment outside the system. This is counter to the purposes
of CBRA, not only because of the direct impacts to fish,
wildlife, and their habitats, but also because of the potential
to disrupt sediment budgets along barrier island chains and
make these areas less resilient to coastal hazards. For those
reasons, the Administration cannot support the legislation as
written.
The Administration also opposes H.R. 615, which would
prohibit the Department of the Interior and Agriculture from
banning or regulating the use of lead ammunition or fishing
tackle on Federal lands and waters. The Service recognizes the
crucial role sportsmen and sportswomen play in protecting and
managing our nation's wildlife resources. Nearly 80 percent of
Service stations currently offer hunting or fishing, and we
continue to look for new opportunities.
With that said, we need to be cautious about lead in the
environment. We have known for decades that lead poses risks to
fish and wildlife, and research shows that ingested lead from
carcasses of hunted wildlife is negatively impacting raptors,
including bald and golden eagles across the country. If the
best available science shows that lead is harming fish or
wildlife in the National Wildlife Refuge System, the Service
needs to retain the flexibility to protect the American
people's interest in fish and wildlife and their habitats.
We recognize the concerns of some of our partners over a
transition to non-lead ammunition and tackle, particularly with
respect to availability and affordability, and we are actively
discussing the issue with the community, including through the
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the Hunting and
Wildlife Conservation Council. The Service is committed to
following the best available science and ensuring an open,
transparent, and inclusive public process to inform future
policy decisions.
Regarding H.R. 2689, among its provisions relating to other
Federal agencies the bill directs the Department of the
Interior to design and deliver a centralized electronic
permitting system. Since Fiscal Year 2020, the Fish and
Wildlife Service has been developing such a system called
ePermits. Currently ePermits has more than 50,000 user
accounts, with 85 different permit applications, and additional
development of the system is planned through Fiscal Year 2028
as we look to build that out.
I look forward to working with the bill's sponsor and the
Subcommittee to learn more about this legislation and how the
Service can contribute to increase trust in government.
Finally, the Administration supports the goals of H.R.
2872, which would allow states to issue Federal duck stamps for
the entire hunting season. We would fully support this bill
with some technical changes to address copyright issues and to
protect duck stamp artists, as well as issues with stamp
distribution.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before the
Subcommittee today. I look forward to your questions, and I am
happy to provide any additional information you may need on the
Administration's positions on these bills. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Strickler follows:]
Prepared Statement of Matthew J. Strickler, Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior
on H.R. 524, H.R. 615, H.R. 2689, and H.R. 2872
Introduction
Good morning, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and Members
of the Subcommittee. I am Matthew J. Strickler, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks within the Department of the
Interior (Department). I appreciate the opportunity to testify before
you today on four bills regarding wildlife conservation, hunting and
fishing, and delivery of government services.
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is
working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife,
plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American
people. The Service's efforts to achieve this mission span a wide
variety of programs, including those established to conserve coastal
resources, wildlife species and habitat, and migratory waterfowl. A
number of those programs are relevant to the legislation before the
Subcommittee today.
Coastal Barrier Resources Act
Established by the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982,
the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) consists of geographic
units that were relatively undeveloped at the time they were designated
under CBRA. In general, undeveloped coastal barriers and their
associated aquatic habitat provide a number of benefits to the economy
and society. These lands and waters serve as natural storm buffers;
provide habitat for countless fish and wildlife species, including many
at-risk species; support recreationally- and commercially-important
fisheries; improve water quality; and create tourism opportunities that
help support local economies. The CBRS encompasses approximately 3.5
million acres along the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Great Lakes, U.S.
Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico coasts. The Service is responsible for
administering CBRA, which includes maintaining and updating the
official maps of the CBRS and consulting with federal agencies that
propose to spend funds or provide financial assistance within the CBRS.
The National Wildlife Refuge System
The National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) plays a
fundamental role in conserving many of our nation's species and their
habitats, particularly migratory birds. The Refuge System's mission is
to administer a national network of lands and waters for the
conservation, management, and, where appropriate, restoration of the
fish, wildlife, and plant resources and the habitats within the United
States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.
Today, the Refuge System spans nearly 100 million acres of lands and
waters. It includes 568 national wildlife refuges, 38 wetland
management districts, 49 coordination areas, and five national marine
monuments (that cover an additional 760 million acres of submerged
lands and waters). The Refuge System includes a diversity of ecosystems
and species, and provides wildlife dependent recreational opportunities
to millions of Americans each year.
Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp
Since 1934, waterfowl hunters 16 years of age or older have been
required by the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (16
U.S.C. 718(a) et al.) to purchase and possess a valid Migratory Bird
Hunting and Conservation Stamp (Federal Duck Stamp) to hunt migratory
waterfowl such as ducks. Ninety-eight percent of the receipts from
stamp sales go to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, which the
Service uses to acquire and conserve migratory bird habitat, including
land for the Refuge System. Over the course of almost ninety years,
Federal Duck Stamps have raised more than $1.1 billion dollars to
support the conservation of over six million acres of valuable habitat.
Federal Duck Stamp sales are critical for waterfowl and habitat
conservation, which in turn ensures sustainable populations of
waterfowl for hunters and recreational bird enthusiasts alike. In this
way, hunters are contributing directly to conservation. In addition,
many non-hunters also voluntarily purchase the stamp to contribute to
migratory bird and habitat conservation, and others purchase Duck
Stamps for free entry into national wildlife refuges that charge a fee.
The Service's Federal Duck Stamp Program is also valued among artists
and stamp collectors, with thousands of adult and junior artists
competing annually for their original artwork to grace the stamps.
We appreciate the Subcommittee's interest in the Service's mission.
We offer the following comments on the four bills under consideration
today and look forward to discussing our views with the Subcommittee.
H.R. 524, To amend the Coastal Barrier Resources Act to create an
exemption for certain shoreline borrow sites
The Administration opposes H.R. 524, which would amend CBRA to
create an exemption allowing federal expenditures or financial
assistance for certain projects that would dredge sand from CBRS units
to renourish beaches outside the CBRS.
CBRA removes federal financial incentives for risky development
along our coasts. This free-market approach saves taxpayer dollars,
saves lives, and conserves coastal ecosystems because removing federal
subsidies reduces development pressure in dynamic coastal areas. In his
1982 signing statement, President Reagan stated that CBRA ``simply
adopts the sensible approach that risk associated with new private
development in these sensitive areas should be borne by the private
sector, not underwritten by the American taxpayer.'' CBRA has been
highly successful in its 40-year history by reducing the intensity of
development on these important coastal barriers. Prohibiting federal
subsidies in designated CBRA areas has resulted in over $9.5 billion in
savings to the federal government. Cost savings are projected to grow
in the future as the impacts of climate change increase along our
coasts.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Coburn, A.S. and Whitehead, J.C., 2019. An analysis of federal
expenditures related to the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of
1982. Journal of Coastal Research, 35(6), 1358-1361. Coconut Creek
(Florida), ISSN 0749-0208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBRA prohibits most new federal expenditures and financial
assistance within the CBRS, but does not restrict the use of private,
state, or local funds or limit the issuance of federal permits. The
Service is responsible for administering this law, which includes
consulting with federal agencies that propose expenditures within the
CBRS. Federal agencies, after consultation with the Service, may make
expenditures only for activities that meet one of the exceptions under
CBRA. The responsibility for complying with CBRA and the final decision
regarding the expenditure of funds for a particular action or project
rests with the federal funding agency.
In relation to federal sand dredging projects, federal funding for
dredging within the CBRS to nourish beaches outside of the CBRS is
considered counter to CBRA's purposes. Consistent with CBRA's plain
language, structure, and legislative history, such federally funded
dredging does not fall within the CBRA exception at 16 U.S.C.
Sec. 3505(a)(6)(G) for ``nonstructural projects for shoreline
stabilization that are designed to mimic, enhance, or restore a natural
stabilization system.''
The Administration opposes H.R. 524, which would amend CBRA to
create a new exemption in the law. This bill would allow the use of
federal funds for borrow sites located within the CBRS that have been
in use as a borrow site by a coastal storm risk management project,
including those outside the CBRS, for more than 15 years.
CBRA seeks to discourage federal projects within the CBRS that may
be damaging to these sensitive ecosystems. Dredging can significantly
alter the natural coastal processes and habitats that many species
depend upon. Sand removal upsets the natural equilibrium and may reduce
the system's ability to maintain a full suite of inlet habitats as sea
level continues to rise. The affected inlets are important habitat
areas for many breeding and migratory shorebirds, including the piping
plover and the rufa red knot, both listed as threatened species under
the Endangered Species Act. Benthic habitats, and the organisms that
live in and on the seabed, are also directly and immediately impacted
by sediment removal. While some of the sand taken from CBRS units for
beach renourishment activities may return to the unit over time, the
overall impacts of dredging in these areas protected by CBRA are
detrimental to coastal species and their habitats.
Sediment placement is often, by design, a short-term strategy that
can help protect coastal infrastructure and critical habitats from
storm inundation. While beach nourishment can lead to improved sea
turtle and shorebird use by widening severely eroded beaches, these
projects may attract further development in vulnerable areas, thus
requiring greater need for future sand replenishment, or more drastic
stabilization measures.
Furthermore, unlike most CBRA exceptions, H.R. 524 would not
require consultation between the action agency and the Service. The
consultation process allows other federal agencies to utilize the
Service's biological expertise to evaluate the anticipated effects on
fish and wildlife, review the project for consistency with the purposes
of CBRA, and identify conservation measures that can minimize damage to
these important resources.
As the nation prepares for more severe coastal flooding, erosion,
and other anticipated effects associated with climate change and sea
level rise, the foresight of Congress and President Reagan over 40
years ago is thoroughly confirmed. Taxpayers bear a burden in
constructing, maintaining, and repeatedly rebuilding infrastructure and
privately owned structures in increasingly vulnerable and unstable
areas along our coasts. But within the CBRS, these taxpayer
expenditures are avoided. The purposes of CBRA to save taxpayers'
money, keep people out of harm's way, and remove federal incentives to
develop environmentally important coastal barriers remain as important
and far-reaching today as they were 40 years ago.
H.R. 615, Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act of 2023
The Administration opposes H.R. 615. This bill prohibits the
Departments of the Interior and Agriculture from banning or regulating
the use of lead ammunition or fishing tackle on federal lands and
waters that are under the jurisdiction of the Service, Bureau of Land
Management, or U.S. Forest Service and are open to hunting or fishing.
The legislation provides an exception for lead prohibitions or
regulations that are limited to a specific unit of federal land or
water, provided that the applicable Secretary can demonstrate with
field data that lead ammunition or tackle is driving a decline in a
wildlife population at that unit. H.R. 615 requires that such unit-
specific lead regulations be consistent with state law or policy or
approved by the applicable state fish and wildlife agency. This
legislation also provides an exception for existing regulations that
prohibit the use of lead shot for waterfowl hunting.
The Service recognizes the important role that sportsmen and women
play in protecting and sustainably managing our nation's wildlife
resources. From generating funding for wetland habitat conservation
through Federal Duck Stamp purchases to supporting state wildlife
conservation programs through excise taxes on hunting and fishing
equipment, hunters and anglers are key partners in helping the Service
achieve its conservation mission.
We pride ourselves in offering high-quality and accessible hunting
and fishing opportunities on the Refuge System and National Fish
Hatchery System, where compatible with our wildlife conservation
mission. Nearly 80 percent of Service stations currently offer hunting
and/or fishing opportunities. We continue to seek opportunities to
expand hunting and fishing access, including through our annual
Station-Specific Hunting and Sport-Fishing regulations. In the past
five years alone, we have opened or expanded hunting and fishing
opportunities on nearly 6.1 million acres of Service lands and waters.
While providing access for wildlife-dependent recreation on the
Refuge System is a priority for the Service, our primary mission in
administering this national network of lands and waters is conserving,
managing, and, restoring fish, wildlife, and plants, and their habitats
for current and future generations. Under the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997, we must ensure that any proposed public
use of a national wildlife refuge--including hunting and fishing--is
compatible with the Refuge System's conservation mission and the
wildlife purposes for which an individual refuge was established.
This ``wildlife first'' mission makes the Refuge System distinct
from other public lands. It also makes the Refuge System a uniquely
important place for our nation's fish and wildlife species,
particularly as they face mounting threats from climate change, habitat
loss, disease, and other stressors.
The impact of lead ammunition and fishing tackle on fish and
wildlife health is one such threat that we are closely tracking. The
Service has long known that lead presents risk to wildlife and human
health. In the 1970s and 1980s, scientific evidence linked the use of
lead shot for waterfowl hunting to declines in several waterfowl
species. This prompted the Service to implement a nationwide, phased-in
requirement for the use of non-lead ammunition for waterfowl hunting.
Since 1991, hunters have been required to use non-lead shot to hunt
waterfowl on federal, state, and private lands.
Over the past several decades, evidence of the negative effects of
lead on fish and wildlife has only grown stronger. Peer-reviewed
science indicates that lead ammunition and tackle negatively affect a
range of fish and wildlife species, including shorebirds, loons, and
raptors. Some species, such as common loons, may directly ingest lead
tackle or ammunition while foraging for food. Others, such as bald
eagles, may ingest lead secondhand when scavenging for animals shot
with lead ammunition. Studies demonstrate that both direct and indirect
lead ammunition and tackle consumption results in individual and
population-level impacts to wildlife.
Given this growing body of evidence, the Service remains concerned
about the use of lead ammunition and tackle on the Refuge System. Many
partners and stakeholders share these concerns. In addition to the
federal regulations requiring the use of non-lead shot for waterfowl
hunting, at least 38 states currently have some non-lead hunting or
fishing requirements in place. The state of California fully banned the
use of lead ammunition for all hunting activities in 2019. Further, we
received thousands of public comments on our 2022-2023 Station-Specific
Hunting and Sport Fishing Rule supporting a Refuge System-wide ban on
lead ammunition and tackle use.
Other partners and stakeholders have different perspectives on this
issue. Many stakeholders, including some hunters and anglers, are
concerned about the impacts of non-lead regulations on hunters' access,
as well as impacts on the effectiveness and affordability of hunting
and fishing.
We recognize this is a significant issue for many stakeholders, and
we want to better understand these diverse perspectives. While it is
not yet clear how we will address the long-term use of lead on the
Refuge System, one thing is for certain: any decision we make will not
be made in a vacuum. The Service is fully committed to facilitating an
open, transparent, and inclusive public process to inform future policy
decisions.
We are advancing these dialogues with partners and stakeholders
through two primary venues. First, we are working with state partners
through the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, where we
recently stood up a team of State Directors and Service leadership to
work together on this issue. This team is providing the Service and
states with a forum to exchange information and perspectives on the use
of lead, including potential recommendations moving forward.
We are also seeking input from the Hunting and Wildlife
Conservation Council (HWCC), a Federal Advisory Council, whose members
represent diverse wildlife conservation and outdoor recreation
constituencies. Lead was a key topic of discussion at the HWCC's
inaugural meeting in December 2022, and we anticipate that a newly
formed subcommittee on wildlife health will provide the Secretaries of
the Interior and Agriculture with advice on this issue.
As we work through this issue, we are taking a cautionary approach
to the expansion of hunting and fishing opportunities on the Refuge
System. We do not intend to propose any hunting or fishing
opportunities that would increase the use of lead on Service lands and
waters.
While we appreciate and share the sponsor's interest in ensuring
accessible hunting and fishing opportunities on public lands, the
Administration opposes H.R. 615. Where the best available science
indicates a need for Service regulations on lead use, it is imperative
that the Service has the flexibility to manage recreational activities
to support our wildlife conservation mission and statutory obligations.
This legislation would categorically prevent us from taking action to
achieve that mission in response to new science, changing environmental
conditions, and evolving threats.
Although H.R. 615 provides an exception for unit-specific lead
regulations, the legislation requires those regulations to align with
state law or policy or be approved by the State fish and wildlife
agency. Although we strive to adopt hunting and fishing regulations on
Service lands and waters that align with state regulations, our
statutory management responsibilities sometimes necessitate more
restrictive federal regulations. Imposing a statutory obligation on the
Service to seek state approval to protect wildlife would hinder our
ability to effectively manage the Federal lands and waters under our
jurisdiction to achieve our conservation mission.
Finally, while states are key partners in discussions regarding
hunting and fishing regulations on the Refuge System, so too are
Tribes, external stakeholders, and the general public. The Service
solicits public comment at the national and local levels through the
rulemaking process whenever we seek to open new or expand existing
hunting and fishing opportunities or modify regulations. This
legislation narrowly focuses on ensuring state engagement and input on
refuge-specific regulations at the expense of broader public
engagement.
We look forward to continued dialogue with Congress, States,
Tribes, and all interested stakeholders as we chart a path forward
together on the future of lead ammunition and tackle in the Refuge
System.
H.R. 2689, Trust in Government Act of 2023
H.R. 2689 includes provisions related to the processes, functions,
and systems for the delivery of services by numerous federal agencies.
Section 2(b)(1)(C) of H.R. 2689 directs the Secretary of the Interior
to design and deliver a centralized, modernized electronic permitting
system to accept and process applications for permits.
As a federal agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is
committed to continually improving our service delivery and the
public's trust in the federal government. In Fiscal Year 2020, the
Service began creating a centralized, electronic system for permits
called ePermits. Since then, we have been incrementally improving the
system and increasing its capacity. Continued development of ePermits
is planned through 2028. Currently, ePermits has over 50,000 user
accounts across 85 different permit application forms and feedback has
been positive overall. Examples of permits currently available on
ePermits include Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) permits, Endangered Species Act
incidental take permits, and Migratory Bird Treaty Act depredation
permits. At full capacity, ePermits will provide an easy to use,
modern, and secure system that streamlines the permitting process for
Service stakeholders.
One consideration is that the Service's permitting processes vary
greatly between programs, a difference that is only wider across
bureaus within the Department of the Interior. Any system or systems
would need to be designed to facilitate permitting decisions that are
made in accordance with different regulatory, statutory, and treaty
requirements. Working with Congress on solutions to develop a system
that addresses ranging programmatic needs and aligns with authorities
for permitting decisions will be important for successful
implementation.
The Service notes that H.R. 2689 aligns with many of the provisions
contained in the President's December 13, 2021, Executive Order on
Transforming Federal Customer Experience and Service Delivery to
Rebuild Trust in Government. The Service is making progress on
compliance with the EO through the Service's ePermits system. We look
forward to working with the sponsor and the Subcommittee to learn more
about H.R. 2689 and how the Service can contribute to increased trust
in government.
H.R. 2872, To amend the Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2013 to
allow States to issue electronic stamps under such Act, and for
other purposes
The Administration supports the goals of H.R. 2872, and with
certain changes, as described below, we would support the bill. H.R.
2872 would amend the Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2013 to
allow States to issue electronic Federal Duck Stamps for the entire
hunting season. The bill would remove the 45-day limit on current
electronic Federal Duck Stamps and make valid any electronic stamps
sold for the entirety of the stamp year, which runs from July 1 in the
preceding year to June 30 of the following year. H.R. 2872 would also
amend the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act of 1934, by
making it an option to either have an electronic stamp or a physical
signed stamp as the license required for hunting waterfowl.
The Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2005 directed the Secretary to
conduct and evaluate a pilot program of electronic stamps, which the
Service started in 2007 in partnership with the eight States of
Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Maryland, Minnesota, Texas, and
Wisconsin. After the pilot concluded in 2010, Congress later passed the
Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2013, authorizing the Service to
allow any eligible State to provide electronic Federal Duck Stamps. The
Service currently partners with 29 States to offer electronic stamps,
which are valid for up to 45 days.
The Service supports the goals of H.R. 2872 to improve the hunter
experience and access to waterfowl hunting, which in turn support
waterfowl conservation. We recognize that many States have already, or
may in the future, transition to electronic licensing. Electronic
stamps, including via e-wallets, are a practical method for hunters to
obtain and carry their permit. The Service recognizes that some hunters
may find the current 45-day period for electronic stamps confusing.
Making the electronic stamp valid through the entire hunting season
would provide greater clarity and certainty to hunters and law
enforcement regarding the permit requirements.
The Service would welcome the opportunity to work with the sponsor
and the Subcommittee to address a few provisions of H.R. 2872. First,
the Service would like to discuss the provision authorizing use of the
image of the actual stamp on the electronic version. The Federal Duck
Stamp and Duck Stamp artwork are copyrighted, and insufficient security
measures may make the artwork vulnerable to copyright violations or
result in lost royalties for the artist. Second, the Service notes that
Federal Duck Stamps are considered accountable property and are secured
at all times by the Service. We recommend giving authority to the
Secretary for distribution of actual stamps, as States do not have
access to the actual stamps and therefore would be unable to distribute
them to purchasers. A successful transition to a permanent E-stamp will
require additional resources beyond current capacity. Finally, it will
be important for the Service to monitor the implementation of this
action to evaluate purchases of electronic and physical stamps and
determine whether a full-season electronic stamp has the potential to
change stamp sales, and available conservation funding. The
Administration would support H.R. 2872 if changes are made that address
these issues.
Conclusion
We appreciate the Subcommittee's interest in wildlife conservation,
hunting and fishing, and the delivery of government services. Thank you
for your continued interest in the Service's mission and we look
forward to working with you on these and future legislative efforts.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Matt Strickler, Deputy
Assistant Secretary, Fish and Wildlife and Parks,
Department of the Interior
Questions Submitted by Representative Bentz
Question 1. In 2020, the Service launched phase one of a new
electronic permitting system that enables applicants to apply for their
permits online. According to the Service, they anticipate completing
the full buildout of the ePermits system by FY2028. How much did it
cost the Service to launch phase one of the ePermits system?
Answer. In FY 2020, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
released ePermits, a modem, secure, customer-facing online permit
system with a $3.4 million investment. Since FY 2020, the FWS has
invested $20.3 million to improve and expand ePermits to achieve
technical milestones such as integrating with Pay.gov and Login.gov,
building a library of 85 PDF customer-facing application forms,
migrating 71,000 records from the legacy system, launching a technical
support feature to help customers using the system, standardizing
common application fields, and upgrading the platform. In August 2023,
the Service conducted a public satisfaction survey of ePermits users
and found that 69% were satisfied with the electronic process, a number
the Service aims to increase with continued improvements.
Question 2. The Services' FY24 budget request for ePermits is $13.5
million, almost double the 2023 enacted levels. Does the Service have
an estimate of the total cost of building out the ePermits system?
Answer. The FWS requires $13.5 million in FY 2024 to support build
out and required maintenance for the base system of over 80 permit
application types, as well as enhancements to include Migratory Birds
Program regulatory changes, certain National Wildlife Refuge System
Special Use Permits in ePermits, and to transition U.S. permitting
under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) from security paper-dependent to fully
electronic permits. The FWS will continue to work with the President
and Congress to evaluate future needs for successful expansion of
ePermits.
Question 3. The Services' ePermits system currently has 50,000 user
accounts for 85 available permits, that's just one agency. Does the
Department have a sense as to how many permits would need to be made
available online to comply with H.R. 2689?
Answer. The Department of the Interior does not have an estimate as
to the number of permits that would be impacted by H.R. 2689.
Question 4. Does the Department have an estimated as to how much it
would cost to implement the provisions of H.R. 2689?
Answer. The Department of the Interior does not have an estimate as
to how much it would cost to implement the provisions of H.R. 2689. We
would anticipate that a new system would require significant funding
and substantial agency staffing.
Questions Submitted by Representative Carl
Question 1. Why is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pursuing a
ban of lead fishing tackle and ammunition provisions under the guise of
human health impacts, when a Center for Disease Control (CDC) study
released by the North Dakota Department of Health show none of those
tested had unsafe blood lead levels?
1a) https://www.nps.gov/pinn/learn/nature/upload/
Iqbal_2008_Assessment
%20of%20human%20health%20risk%20from%20consumption%20of%20wild
%20game%20meat%20with%20possible%20lead.pdf
Answer. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is not pursuing a
ban of lead fishing tackle and ammunition. The FWS mission, which is
grounded in the laws that mandate our work, is to work with others to
conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their
habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. Consistent
with our mission, the FWS' primary basis for any decisions regarding
lead ammunition and tackle is the negative impact of lead ammunition
and tackle on fish and wildlife health, based on the best available,
peer-reviewed science. At the handful of specific stations where the
FWS has decided to require the use of non-lead ammunition and tackle,
we have made those decisions to reduce a known threat to wildlife
species while still providing access to hunters and anglers.
Although it is not the primary basis for FWS decision-making
related to lead ammunition and tackle use on specific national wildlife
refuges, we note that the Center for Disease Control (CDC) study cited
in the question does not support an assertion that lead ammunition and
tackle are without harm to human health. On the contrary, the study,
together with others, provides clear evidence that there are human
health impacts from bioaccumulated lead, and thus reason to be cautious
about the use of lead ammunition from that perspective.
______
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Strickler. I now recognize
Congressman Rouzer to introduce our next witness, Mayor Darryl
Mills.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a great honor
and pleasure to have my friend and the Mayor of Wrightsville
Beach, Darryl Mills, here to testify today, who has been a
resident of Wrightsville Beach for a long time, in fact, grew
up there.
Anyhow, he is a great citizen, a great, great mayor serving
in his second term, and I present to you Mayor Darryl Mills.
Mr. Bentz. Mr. Mayor, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DARRYL MILLS, MAYOR OF WRIGHTSVILLE
BEACH, WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Mills. Thank you, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member
Huffman, members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity
to come before you and speak in support of H.R. 524, relative
to amending the Coastal Barrier Resources Act.
Since Federal funds have been first available to spend to
protect coastal areas, which was in the 1960s, Wrightsville
Beach has been the beneficiary on a 4-year cycle of those
funds. That has allowed Wrightsville Beach to protect valuable
coastal infrastructure, property, and indeed, life.
In over 50 years of these cycle events, as Congressman
Rouzer has ably described, there has been no evidence of any
detrimental impact on the ecosystem around Masonboro Inlet or
the sound areas around Wrightsville Beach. None.
The recent interpretation of CBRA which prohibits us from
using Masonboro Inlet is part of a broad-sweeping, you-can't-
do-this approach. I recognize in some places that may be
appropriate. But we have over 50 years of active, ongoing
activity that shows it is not the case for us. There is no
evidence.
To the contrary, Masonboro Inlet is actively used for
fishing, boating, swimming. And the Audubon Society has a huge
bird sanctuary right there beside it. It is not negatively
impacting anything from an environmental point of view, which
is, as we have already said, one of the main goals of CBRA. We
don't argue with that. We support that. We very much cooperate
with Audubon and their bird sanctuary. A significant part of
their sanctuary is on our property. Our dredging, which again,
we have been doing since 1960s, has not affected that at all.
There is zero negative environmental impact.
The other concern, as ably described by Mr. Strickler, is
cost. These events are expensive. But they serve a valuable
purpose. They protect valuable infrastructure, valuable
property.
Your Army Corps of Engineers does an economic analysis
every time a beach nourishment event is on the horizon.
Wrightsville Beach continually, every time, is at the top or
near the top of that return on investment. The return on the
Federal dollar spent is significantly higher than many projects
that you continue to fund. I am not saying that to criticize
those projects; I am saying that to reinforce that the concern
about the expenditure of Federal funds, and I am a taxpayer, I
share that concern, is being well spent at Wrightsville Beach.
The cost of these events, as we have now discussed with the
marine dredging contractors that do this work and have been
doing this work every cycle, we are looking at doubling or
tripling or even more what it costs us to get the sand out of
Masonboro Inlet. So, if you want a wise expenditure of Federal
funds, don't go sending us miles offshore. Let us continue a
proven, logical, expeditious, and efficient system of recycling
sand. We recycle: Wrightsville Beach, Masonboro Inlet,
Wrightsville Beach--it has worked beautifully for over 50 years
at much less cost than going offshore.
Couple that with the unknown of mining sand out in the
ocean. How will that affect the ocean floor? What is the impact
on marine life? We don't know. It is an unknown. What we do
know is it has not impacted Masonboro Inlet and the ecosystem
there. We know that. We have decades of proof.
So, I implore you, I ask you, I request from you
respectfully to support H.R. 524. It is the smart thing to do.
I thank you for your attention and for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mills follows:]
Prepared Statement of Darryl Mills, Mayor, Town of Wrightsville Beach,
North Carolina
H.R. 524, to amend the Coastal Barrier Resources Act to create an
exemption for certain shoreline borrow sites
Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman and Members of the
Subcommittee:
My name is Darryl Mills and I am the Mayor of the Town of
Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina (the Beach). The Beach is a
municipality incorporated under the laws of the State of North
Carolina. I am a resident of the Beach and have been for a majority of
my life including the last almost 30 years.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee
today. While I am here officially in my capacity as Mayor of the Beach,
I can confidently state that I am also speaking for the thousands of
nearby residents and tourists that visit our beautiful beach annually.
I am here to voice my support and that of my constituents for H.R.
524 to amend the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) to create an
exemption for certain shoreline borrow sites.
BACKGROUND
CBRA was enacted in 1982 with the primary dual purposes of limiting
federal funding relative to activity in certain protected zones and
attempting to protect natural resources within those zones. Pursuant to
that, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the USACE) has
conducted certain storm damage reduction activities at the Beach using
an immediately adjacent borrow site to procure compatible sand to
replace sand washed away by storm activity. The most recent
interpretation of CBRA has prevented the continued use of this
historical borrow site. The proposed exemption pursuant to H.R. 524
would reinstate the use of the historical borrow site.
The Beach is a beautiful beach town located on the Southeastern
coast of North Carolina. The Beach has served as a primary economic
driver for eastern North Carolina and the State as a whole. The Beach
has also provided critical protection for coastal infrastructure,
property and human life by serving as a buffer from hurricanes and
other coastal storms. Maintaining the Beach from the damage resulting
from hurricanes and other storms has occurred through the
implementation of coastal storm damage reduction activities commonly
referred to as ``beach nourishment events'' or ``beach nourishment''
that consist of placing compatible sand on the beach proper and
maintaining berms or dunes located thereon.
For approximately 50 years these coastal storm damage reduction
projects have occurred under the direction and guidance of the USACE.
The USACE has planned, designed, engineered and supervised the
placement of compatible sand onto the Beach. This compatible sand has
come from a borrow site which was originally selected and approved by
the USACE. The borrow site for the Beach is located in Masonboro Inlet
(the borrow site) which connects the Atlantic Ocean to the sound and
lagoon areas surrounding Wrightsville Beach and then further connects
to the Intracoastal Waterway. Masonboro Inlet runs along the
southernmost end of the Beach.
This borrow site has been used numerous times as the Beach has been
on a 4 year cycle for beach nourishment events since the initial
authorization in the 1960s. Please note that many other beaches are on
3 year cycles. The borrow site functions as a source of recycled sand
that migrates from the Beach and nearby islands in accordance with
natural sand migration processes. The borrow site's proximate location
to the Beach expedites the entire beach nourishment process and serves
to keep the costs down--one of the stated goals of CBRA.
Moreover, in the approximately 50 years of this beach nourishment
activity there has not been any discernable prejudicial effect on the
quality of water nor on the wildlife or marine life that inhabit the
surrounding area. Evidence of this is that the area is a popular spot
for fishing. Further evidence that the beach nourishment activities
using the borrow site do not harm the environment is that for many
years the Audubon Society has maintained a migratory bird sanctuary at
the Beach. The Beach has cooperated fully with the Audubon Society in
this endeavor and indeed has allowed a huge tract of land to be used
for that purpose.
The result is a logical, efficient, properly functioning recycling
system of compatible sand for the Beach while helping to maintain the
viability and navigability of Masonboro Inlet which is an access to the
Atlantic Ocean for commercial and recreational purposes. Of additional
interest is that the United States Coast Guard has a station located in
the immediate area and has a clear need of maintaining the navigability
of the inlet and sound.
In addition, the USACE performs an economic analysis to ensure the
prudent expenditure of federal funds in furtherance of beach
nourishment events. The Beach has consistently been determined to
display a return on investment greater than the vast majority of
beaches and inlets receiving similar funding and the Beach well exceeds
the minimum required return to garner approval of funding.
Present situation:
Notwithstanding the above, the latest interpretation of the CBRA
statute by the Department of the Interior has resulted in the USACE and
the Beach not being able to continue to use the historically efficient
borrow site and instead go miles offshore to attempt to find compatible
sand for beach nourishment.
Having to go offshore flies in the face of the stated goals of
efficient use of federal funds and environmentally sound decisions.
While common sense immediately tells you that procuring sand from just
yards away from the southern end of the Beach has to be less expensive
than going offshore miles away, the preliminary estimates indicate
easily doubling or even tripling the historical cost of a single beach
nourishment event. For example, for the last beach nourishment event
which in 2018, the total cost was approximately $11.9 million. While no
official bids have been tendered as the project using the offshore
borrow site has not been placed on the street for bid, the available
information from marine contractors is that the cost will at a minimum
be in the $25-30 million range and possibly higher once all factors are
considered.
The environmental impact utilizing the offshore site is no better
than the historical borrow site as there has been little to no
discernable impact on the environment from use of the historical site
as explained above. Plus, using the historical borrow site would
continue the recycling of proven compatible sand and does not require
mining the ocean floor where there would be little to no natural
recycling of sand involved. Clearly, transporting the sand from miles
offshore involves using much greater energy resources.
In contrast, given the substantial financial savings and the
negligible, if any, impact on the surrounding ecosystem, including but
not limited to marine life and migratory birds, the use of the
historical borrow site as designed by the USACE has proven to be the
most cost effective, ecologically sound method to protect the Beach
including infrastructure, property and human life from the damages of
coastal storms.
H.R. 524
Congressman Rouzer's H.R. 524 proposes that certain borrow sites be
exempted if these sites have been used by a coastal storm risk
management program for more than 15 years.
The historically used borrow site by Wrightsville Beach would
qualify as all storm damage reduction activities have been pursuant to
the program directed and supervised by the USACE and have been so for
more than 15 years.
With this exemption, the federal government and the Beach could
save an enormous amount of money versus using an offshore site. In the
process, the federal government and the Beach could be confident of
compliance with the environmental concerns raised in CBRA. In sum, the
USACE and the Beach can achieve the primary goals of CBRA,
I respectfully request that you support and approve H.R. 524. You
can do so with the knowledge that you are, in fact, adhering to and
meeting the goals of CBRA both in spirit and fact.
Thank you for your consideration.
______
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I now recognize Mr. Bryan
McClinton for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF BRYAN McCLINTON, UNDERSECRETARY, LOUISIANA
DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES, BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA
Mr. McClinton. Thank you, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member
Huffman, members of the Subcommittee. My name is Brian
McClinton. I am the Undersecretary for the Louisiana Department
of Wildlife and Fisheries. I am here today to talk about H.R.
2872.
I am going to offer sort of a state's perspective, or just
our state's perspective. And also, as an Undersecretary, I am
the CFO of Wildlife and Fisheries, so I am coming to this more
of a finance and funding than the biological implications of
this.
Just for a little history, the Federal Duck Stamp Program
was signed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1934. As mentioned
earlier by the Chairman, it has generated over $1 billion of
wetland habitat restoration protection. That happened,
actually, 3 years before the first wildlife restoration. The
Pittman-Robinson Act was signed in 1937. And that Act was one
that established an excise tax on guns, ammunition, later
amended archery into that, and that money is allocated to the
states.
I can't tell you how important that grant program is for
the state of Louisiana. Our Office of Wildlife uses that to
manage the million-and-a-half acres that we provide the public.
We use it to implement our education courses, hunter education
and other. We use it to run our forestry program and private
lands. In the match that is used by that is the hunting
licenses that come from the users within the state. So, we are
user-supported, and any time we can make their lives easier and
give our gratitude for their support, that is important to us.
I will tell you in the 15 years I have been at Wildlife and
Fisheries, only twice have we had general fund from the state
to supplement our operations. We try to be self-contained. We
try to do things ourselves. For that reason, we have been
technology-forward. We have an application that is available
that shows all your hunting and fishing licenses, your hunter
education, your boater safety course. It even has offshore
fishing permits, and you can even track your deer or turkey
harvest tags or harvest reporting through that app. The one
thing that we are not allowed to do is the Federal duck stamp,
because of the current way that the electronic duck stamp is
postured.
We became members of this program in 2014. You buy the
stamp online through our vendor, it goes to a contractor called
Amplex, they mail you the stamp. The receipt that you get from
us is good for 45 days. When you receive the actual stamp, you
are to sign it with an ink pen across the face and carry it on
your person. It is a great program. It has done a lot of good
things, but we would like to be able to have this thing to be
able to offer that to our hunters, the convenience of having
everything in one spot.
So, what H.R. 2872 does is it takes that 45 days and
extends it throughout the season. It requires that the stamp is
still sent to the individual, and that is important because
every single art collector, every single waterfowl hunter,
every single person that supports conservation of this stamp
will get that stamp. So, the artists that are putting their
names out there and supporting one of the oldest wildlife
restoration programs I am familiar with is still having that
same exposure, and it protects the heritage of that program.
The other thing is, even if you are in Louisiana and we
have an electronic stamp now, if you don't want to use the
electronic stamp, you can still go to the post office, you can
come to our office, we will sell you the actual stamp. It
doesn't degrade the validity of the actual stamp, as well,
either. It simply is a convenience for those people that want
to utilize it.
But what is really brilliant about this legislation is it
is voluntary. The states that do not use electronic stamps are
not compelled to do so. They can continue to operate the way
that they are. And those that choose to already have that, it
just gives them a little bit of a feather in their cap for
their users that support their programs, as well.
I am here representing Louisiana, but this legislation goes
well beyond our borders. The Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies, all four Flyway Councils, Delta Waterfowl Foundation,
Ducks Unlimited, and Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation all
support this legislation. And I sort of feel guilty being here
today because those guys have been meeting on this, talking
about this topic for some time, and I feel like I am kind of
standing on their shoulders, and I hope this testimony does
justice to the work that they have been doing over the years,
trying to develop a program that will benefit the users, but
also protect the heritage of the Federal Duck Stamp Program.
So, I would like to thank Congressman Graves for
introducing H.R. 2872. I would like to thank the Chairman and
the Ranking Member again for having me here. I will happily
answer any questions you have, and thank you for this time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McClinton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bryan McClinton, Undersecretary, Louisiana
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
on H.R. 2872
Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the
subcommittee. My name is Bryan McClinton, and I am the Undersecretary
for the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. I appreciate
the opportunity to testify on behalf of our customers and constituents,
the hundreds of thousands of sportsmen and women of Louisiana. I also
thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for the invitation to be here
today to share the view of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies regarding
H.R. 2872, which would amend the Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act of
2013. This bill will allow states to use the most current technology to
improve the user experience while maintaining the conservation legacy
of the federal duck stamp program.
For a little bit of background, in the early 1930s our country
experienced our most devastating drought in history, not only wreaking
havoc on our nation's Midwest farmers and ranchers but also turning
vital wetlands into barren wastelands and decimating waterfowl
populations. Fortunately, waterfowl hunters rallied behind the
Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act, which created what
is commonly known as the ``Federal Duck Stamp''. Signed into law by
Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1934, the duck stamp provided a crucial,
permanent source of funding for purchasing and restoring wetlands
across the country. With the proceeds from this stamp, we began to turn
the tide in favor of waterfowl conservation, along with the invaluable
benefits that healthy wetlands provide for the nation. Since that first
stamp, sales have raised more than $950 million to help filter surface
and ground water, aid in flood control, reduce soil erosion and
sedimentation, and enhance outdoor recreation opportunities for both
waterfowl hunters and the general public.
I know some of you are familiar with the North American Model of
Wildlife Conservation, which among other tenants, holds our fish and
wildlife in public trust, ensures that everyone has an equal
opportunity to participate in hunting and fishing, and that fish and
wildlife conservation must be based on sound science. What is perhaps
lesser appreciated is that the model is primarily supported by hunters
and anglers through what is known as the American System of
Conservation Funding. Hunting and fishing license sales, and various
permits and stamps, including the Federal Duck Stamp, combined with
excise taxes on firearms, ammunition, archery equipment, fishing
tackle, trolling motors, and motorboat and small engine fuels, provides
the bulk of funding for state fish and wildlife agencies. This system
of funding is unlike any other program in the world and is the primary
source of fish and wildlife conservation funding in the country. It is
a ``user pay--public benefit'' system, and since the inception of the
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, has been funded and
supported by our licensed hunters and anglers to the benefit of all
Louisianans who enjoy our abundant fish and wildlife resources. Our
dedicated hunters and anglers believe in this proven model, gladly bear
the financial burden for fish and wildlife conservation, and remain the
reason we are still here today.
This legislation is our opportunity to do something for them.
Technology has improved the ability of hunters and anglers to have
success in the field or water. It stands to reason that we should use
technology to improve their licensing experience, as well.
In Louisiana, we have been early adopters of electronic hunting and
fishing licenses. We accept electronic offshore permits for fishing. We
even allow electronic tagging or harvest reporting for deer and turkey.
Louisiana hunters and anglers have appreciated the convenience and
utility of this new technology. We have maximized our ability to offer
electronic licensing under our jurisdiction. However, the one item that
we cannot offer our hunters under current law is a Federal Duck Stamp,
valid for the entire waterfowl season.
Louisiana is proud to be part of the pilot program, We implemented
an electronic federal duck stamp system in 2014. It is administered by
state fish and wildlife agencies, valid for 45 days, or until the
actual stamp is received by mail. The law maintained the requirement,
that once the individual receives their actual federal duck stamp, they
were to physically sign it across the face with an ink pen and keep it
on their person.
H.R. 2872 will extend this 45-day period through the end of the
waterfowl hunting season. A state will be able to incorporate their
issued federal duck stamp into their own secure online electronic
applications or platforms, which will streamline the customer
experience. For Louisiana, this means the hunter will possess all the
required licenses, stamps, and permits on their smartphone. It also
allows the physical stamp to be delivered to an individual after the
season is closed. Why is this important? This means all waterfowl
hunters and stamp collectors would still receive their actual federal
duck stamp in the mail, thereby maintaining the artistic integrity of
the federal duck stamp. As many of you know, the duck stamp art contest
is one of the oldest and absolutely the most unique conservation art
contests in the United States. Therefore, this legislation allows the
contest and its rich heritage to remain strong.
The proposed legislation before you provides a voluntary
opportunity for states, not a unilateral requirement. According to a
2022 report by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 44 of 49
states that allow waterfowl hunting (Hawaii being the exception)
provide a means for electronic self-purchasing of licenses, and 42 of
49 states allow either digital or physical proof of licensure.\1\ While
a majority of states do offer an electronic stamp option, states who do
not wish to offer the electronic version of the stamp are not compelled
to do so. For states that offer an electronic duck stamp, hunters can
still acquire an actual stamp. Therefore, this legislation preserves
the value of a physical stamp and the art that helped secure the
wetland conservation success of the program while offering the hunter a
convenient, electronic version when going into the field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.fishwildlife.org/application/files/3216/6333/2968/
Duck_Stamp_Report_Final_2-28-22.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a final note, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, all
four Flyways Councils, Delta Waterfowl Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, and
the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation support this legislation. I am
here to represent Louisiana, but the benefits of this legislation will
extend beyond our sportspeople. This will serve as a sincere thank you
to all American waterfowlers, who have always supported conservation.
Once again, I deeply appreciate the opportunity to provide our
perspective on this simple but important legislation. We look forward
to working with the Committee and our partners as this bill moves
forward.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to speak in
support of this bill, and I welcome any questions.
______
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. McClinton, and I now recognize
Mr. Timothy Whitehouse for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY WHITEHOUSE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY, POOLESVILLE,
MARYLAND
Mr. Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member
Huffman, members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate all the hard
work this Subcommittee does on the difficult issues you face,
and I welcome the opportunity to offer our perspective on the
bills before us.
My name is Tim Whitehouse. I am the Executive Director of
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. We are a
national environmental group located in Silver Spring, Maryland
that works with current and former public employees to improve
the environmental and public health outcomes of the agencies
they worked with or are currently working with. I am here to
speak in favor of H.R. 2689 and H.R. 2872, and to offer our
opposition to H.R. 524 and H.R. 615.
We oppose H.R. 524 because it would allow federally
subsidized sand mining in the Coastal Barrier Resource System.
This will cost taxpayers millions of dollars, harm critical
coastal habitats, and reduce resiliency in coastal communities.
For communities that need sediment placement on their beaches
and coastlines outside the CBRS, there are alternatives,
perhaps not always the best, but there are alternatives to
receiving Federal subsidies to use sand that is mined in CBRS
areas.
The CBRA is the only Federal law designed to reduce coastal
development by prohibiting most Federal expenditures that
support and fund coastal development. This is an important
public policy to protect our coastlines, as coastal development
costs are skyrocketing and threatening the U.S. Treasury with
sea level rise and increased hurricane dangers which are
driving costs even higher.
We also oppose H.R. 615 because it would effectively bar
the Secretaries from being able to protect and steward the
lands and wildlife under their purview. We now know that there
are virtually no safe levels of lead in the human body and, in
most cases, in wildlife. It is well documented how lead
ammunition in the human body and in wildlife can affect both
our development and the development and well-being of the
wildlife around us.
There are alternatives to lead ammunition and tackle that
are becoming widely used in the United States, Europe, and
elsewhere, including on Federal lands. We believe the Secretary
should make the final decision about whether to bar the use of
lead ammunition in the units they manage based upon the public
input and consultation and the science that they received
during that process of determining whether this type of
ammunition and tackle is allowed.
In terms of H.R. 2689, we strongly support it. It would,
among other things, require the Secretary of the Interior to
design and deliver a centralized, modernized electronic
permitting system to accept and process permit applications,
and is designed to improve the overall efficiency and
management of government operations.
Given the world's rapidly changing technological landscape,
the public expects Federal agencies to keep up with the private
sector in how it interacts with the public, such as how it
provides the public with information and allows access to
information, as well as how it accepts and receives information
such as permit applications from the public. Progress is being
made. For example, we have noticed that the Fish and Wildlife
Service has already done significant work to improve its
customer experience by updating its website and making it more
accessible, as well as addressing online permitting issues.
This act would help accelerate these improvements throughout
the Federal Government.
I also wanted to speak in support of H.R. 2872, which would
allow the states to issue duck stamps. Hunters have always
played an integral part in conserving America's natural
resources. The success of the Federal Duck Stamp Program
illustrates this commitment. Allowing states to issue
electronic duck stamps will make duck stamps more accessible to
people, and help raise revenue that will benefit hunters and
wildlife.
Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for the opportunity to be
here. Thank you, Ranking Member Huffman, and I appreciate the
ability and willingness to speak to you about these four bills.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitehouse follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tim Whitehouse, Executive Director, Public
Employees for Environmental Responsibility
on H.R. 524, H.R. 615, H.R. 2689, and H.R. 2872
H.R. 524: To amend the Coastal Barrier Resources Act to create an
exemption for certain shoreline borrow
Summary
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) opposes
H.R. 524, which would amend Section 6 of CBRA by adding a new
subsection to allow federal funds to be used to mine a CBRS area ``if
such a site has been in use as a borrow site by a coastal storm risk
management project for a period of more than 15 years.''
The CBRA is an economic and environmental success story because it
saves taxpayers money, protects property values, supports the outdoor
recreation industries, and conserves essential wildlife habitat. We
oppose H.R. 524 because it would allow sand mining in CBRS areas, cost
taxpayers millions of dollars, harm critical coastal habitats, and
reduce resiliency in coastal communities. For communities that need
sediment placement on their beaches and coastlines, there are
alternatives to receiving federal subsidies to use sand mined in CBRA
areas.
Background: The CBRA
The CBRA established the Coastal Barrier Resources System that now
encompasses about 3.5 million acres along the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico,
Great Lakes, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico coasts.
CBRA prohibits most new federal expenditures and financial
assistance for projects and activities within the CBRS, including
projects to prevent the erosion of, or to otherwise stabilize, any
inlet, shoreline, or inshore area (16 U.S.C. 3504(a)(3)). The law does
not restrict the use of private, state, or local funds or limit the
issuance of federal permits within the CBRS.
The CBRA approach to conservation does not prevent development and
imposes no restrictions on development conducted with nonfederal funds.
CBRS units may be developed, but federal taxpayers largely do not
underwrite the investments. The law aims to protect natural resources,
save taxpayer money, and keep people out of harm's way by removing the
federal incentive to develop ecologically sensitive and storm-prone
coastal barriers. These areas provide important habitats for wildlife,
including fish and shellfish, that support the nation's multi-billion-
dollar fishing industry.
The CBRA is an economic and environmental success story.
The CBRA has saved billions of taxpayer dollars. For example, a
2019 economic analysis by professors at Western Carolina University and
Appalachian State University estimates that the CBRA reduced federal
coastal disaster expenditures by $9.5 billion between 1989 and 2013 and
will save an additional $11-108 billion by 2068.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://shoreline.wcu.edu/Andy/Coburn&Whitehead_2019_JCR.pdf)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These savings primarily come about because CBRA areas provide vital
natural resources and ecological functions. For example, the CBRA
System protects barrier islands and inlets that, in turn, protect
coastal wetlands. Nationwide, coastal wetlands provide over $23 billion
in storm protection services.\2\ The National Audobon Society reports
that a 2.5-acre decrease in wetlands corresponds to a $33,000 increase
in storm damage.\3\ Undeveloped coastal areas along the mid-Atlantic
coast helped to prevent more than $625 million worth of additional
damage from the 2012 Hurricane Sandy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ NOAA, ``Fast Facts: Natural Infrastructure.'' https://
coast.noaa.gov/states/fast-facts/natural-
infrastructure.html#:?:text=Coastal%20wetlands%20in%20the%20U.S.,storm%2
0protection%20 services%20every%20year.
\3\ National Audubon Society, ``Natural Infrastructure Report: How
natural infrastructure can shape a more resilient coast for birds and
for people.'' January 2018. P. 3. https://nas-national-
prod.s3.amazonaws.com/audubon_infrastructure_jan192018.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBRA areas also provide vital and increasingly rare habitats for
fish birds. Nationwide, bird watching is a $107 billion a year industry
that positively impacts 47 million people per year and \4\ $6.5 billion
is spent on bird hunting each year.\5\ Coastal wetlands and estuaries
support commercial and recreational fisheries, which provide 1.7
million jobs, generate $238 billion in sales, and provide $108 billion
in value-added services.\6\ In South Carolina, the commercial saltwater
fishing industry lands more than 9.7 million pounds of fish,
contributing more than $26 million annually to the state's economy.
Recreational fishing lands another 8 million pounds of fish.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. North American Bird Conservation Initiative Committee,
``Clean Air And Water, Human Health, And Economic Benefits Go Hand-In-
Hand With Bird Conservation.'' https://nabci-us.org/wp-content/uploads/
2020/01/NABCI-linking-bird-conservation-to-human-benefits-3.pdf
\5\ Ibid.
\6\ NOAA Fisheries, ``Fisheries Economics of the United States.''
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/sustainable-fisheries/
fisheries-economics-united-states; https://nas-national-prod.s3.
amazonaws.com/audubon_infrastructure_jan192018.pdf
\7\ NOAA Fisheries, ``Landings.'' https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
foss/f?p=215:200:2611030725916 ::NO:RP::
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed amendment would undermine this success.
Allowing taxpayer-funded sand mining in CBRS areas would put a
financial burden on taxpayers around the country to fund enormously
costly sand mining operations. Sand mining in nearshore areas, like
inlets, has been shown to disrupt sand supplies to downdrift
communities, making them more vulnerable to hurricanes, storms, and
erosion. A 2021 report by the USGS & F.W.S. documented harm to
downdrift communities from sand mining, which impacts short- and long-
term coastal resilience. Sea level rise is compounding these
impacts.\8\ A study on beach renourishment projects for Folly Beach,
SC, and Wrightsville Beach, NC, found that ``significant quantities''
of sand migrate offshore and do not re-enter the near coastal
environment.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ United States Geological Survey & United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, ``Impacts of Sediment Removal from and Placement in
Coastal Barrier Island Ecosystems.'' June 2021. https://pubs.usgs.gov/
of/2021/1062/ofr20211062.pdf
\9\ Thieler, E. Robert, Gayes, Paul T., et al., ``Tracing Sediment
Dispersal on Nourished Beaches: Two Case Studies,'' in Coastal
Sediments 1999. New York, ASCE, pp. 2118-2136.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, sand mining in nearshore areas has been shown to harm
the environment in the short- and long term. Sand mining in nearshore
areas can harm habitats vital to overwintering and migrating shore- and
waterbirds, with harm to the food chain persisting for months to
several years.\10\ In South Carolina, the Corps reported that sand
mining in CBRS units by Folly Beach, SC, destroyed bottom-living
organisms that form the base of the food chain for shorebirds and fish.
These CBRS areas are crucial to imperiled shorebirds like Least Terns
and American Oystercatchers.\11\ In North Carolina, the Corps reported
that sand mining in CBRA units in Masonboro Inlet/Banks Channel reduced
down drift sediments reaching Masonboro Island, contributing to erosion
of the island, which is vitally important to sea turtles and shorebirds
like the American Oystercatcher and Wilson's Plovers.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ USGS & F.W.S. Report, op cit.
\11\ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington (N.C.) District.
Draft Integrated General Reevaluation Report and Environmental
Assessment for Coastal Storm Risk Management, Folly Beach, Charleston
County, South Carolina, October 2020. Pp. 61-63.
\12\ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington (N.C.) District.
Wrightsville Beach, NC, Draft Validation Study. June 2019. P. 62. Also
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, ``Masonboro Island
Reserve.'' https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/coastal-management/nc-
coastal-reserve/reserve-sites/masonboro-island-reserve
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are alternatives to using federal funds to mine for sand in CBRS
areas.
In Wrightsville Beach, NC, the Corps reported that the CBRS areas
in Masonboro Inlet/Banks Channel cannot provide enough sand for
Wrightsville Beach's renourishment project. The ``volume of sand
available from Masonboro Inlet and Banks Channel is declining, and the
inlet is not recharging sufficiently to meet the long-term demands of
the beach renourishment project.'' Therefore, the Corps identified a
potential offshore area outside a CBRS unit with 70 million cubic yards
of usable sand.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington (N.C.) District.
Wrightsville Beach, NC, Validation Study Appendices. June 2019.
Appendix B-i and B-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Carolina Beach, NC, The Corps reported an existing offshore
borrow site not located within a CBRS area that can be mined for sand,
removing the need to mine sand in CBRA areas.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington (N.C.) District.
Carolina Beach NC Beach Renourishment Evaluation Report. June 2019. P.
ii.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Folly Beach, SC, the Corps reported that 8.1 million cubic yards
of sand would be needed to renourish Folly Beach through 2060. The
Corps has already identified four offshore, non-CBRS sand borrow sites
containing 7.34 million cubic yards of beach-compatible sand. The CBRS
sites near Folly Beach have only 2-3 million cubic yards.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington (S.C.) District.
Draft Integrated General Reevaluation Report and Environmental
Assessment for Coastal Storm Risk Management, Folly Beach, Charleston,
County, South Carolina. October 2020. Pp. 106-113.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 524 is the Wrong Approach Financially
CBRA is the only federal law designed to reduce coastal development
by prohibiting most federal expenditures that support and fund coastal
development. This is an important public policy to protect as coastal
development costs are skyrocketing and threatening the U.S. Treasury,
with sea level rise and increased hurricane damages driving the costs
even higher.
The National Flood Insurance Program is in massive debt, owing more
than $20.5 billion to the U.S. Treasury. The majority of flood
insurance policies are for coastal properties. The federal taxpayer has
repeatedly bailed out the NFIP.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Congressional Research Service, ``Introduction to the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).'' November 19, 2021. https://
sgp.fas.org/crs/homesec/R44593.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/crs/homesec/
R44593.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beach renourishment projects around the country have cost more than
$11 billion to date.\17\ The federal taxpayer typically pays 65% of the
projects, placing the U.S. taxpayer on the hook for billions of dollars
to place sand on beaches that hurricanes, storms, erosion, and sea
level rise often wash away.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines, Western
Carolina University. Beach Nourishment Viewer. https://
beachnourishment.wcu.edu/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 615: Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act of 2023
Summary
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) strongly
opposes H.R. 615, which, with very limited exceptions, bars the
Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture from
prohibiting or regulating the use of lead ammunition or tackle on
federal land or water that is under the jurisdiction of such
departments and made available for hunting or fishing.
Reasons for Our Opposition
H.R. 615 would effectively bar the Secretaries from being able to
protect and steward the lands and wildlife under their purview. This is
because H.R. 615 would bar the Secretaries from prohibiting the use of
lead and ammunition of tackle on federal land or water or issuing
regulations related to lead levels in ammunition or tackle unless the
applicable Secretary determines that a decline in wildlife populations
is primarily caused by the use of lead ammunition or tackle in that
unit based on data from that unit, and is consistent with state laws
and the Secretary's actions are approved by the state.
We know there are virtually no safe lead levels in the human body
and in wildlife. It is well documented how lead ammunition and tackle
used in other forms of hunting and fishing poisons the birds and other
wildlife that ingest it--either swallowing it like waterfowl or
scavenging on carcasses and gut piles containing embedded lead shot or
fragments of lead ammunition.
The ecological stakes are profound. Wildlife species are exposed to
or killed by ingesting lead or prey contaminated with lead. For
example:
Lead is a leading threat to birdlife, especially bald
eagles, hawks, and other raptors, as well as other birds
from loons to condors;
Lead fragments from spent shells remain lodged throughout
the wildlife food chain; and
Lost lead fishing tackle leads to elevated levels of lead
in fish and amphibians.
Beyond the harm to wildlife, human consumption of lead-shot game
poses significant health risks. The public now has a much better
understanding that lead exposure is a significant public health concern
due to its persistence in the environment and places where we work and
recreate, its presence in our communities and homes, and that lead
poisoning can affect children, especially in underserved communities.
We are also concerned that children in underserved communities may be
consuming wild game contaminated with lead or possibly be exposed
during fishing activities.
The reasons for our opposition to H.R. 615 are further spelled out
in a letter that PEER and nine other organizations have submitted to
this committee. The attached letter is below as part of PEER's
testimony.
*****
Attachment
29 March 2023
Subject: Organizations Oppose H.R. 615, Support Sportspeople-
Led Conservation and Secretarial Land Stewardship
Dear Representative,
The undersigned conservation groups are writing in staunch
opposition to H.R. 615--Protecting Access for Hunters and
Anglers Act of 2023. H.R. 615 would prohibit the Secretaries of
Interior and Agriculture from regulating the use of lead
ammunition or tackle on certain Federal land or water under
their jurisdiction. In short, it would bar the Secretaries from
being able to protect and steward the lands and wildlife under
their purview, and protect hunters and anglers from dangerous
lead ammunition and fishing tackle.
The title of H.R. 615 wrongly creates the illusion that it
protects access for hunters and anglers on Federal lands, but
in reality, it restricts the ability to replace lead ammunition
with commonly used non-lead ammunition.
Moreover, hampering the authority of the Secretaries to carry
out their duties could put endangered species such as the
California Condor, and protected species such as Bald and
Golden Eagles at risk.
Lead has been banned from our gasoline, paint, and pipes.
Millions of dollars are spent annually combatting its effects
in our homes and businesses. In 1991 the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service banned the use of lead ammunition for hunting waterfowl
nationwide, preventing the unnecessary killing of millions of
waterfowl, which ingest spent ammunition alongside the pebbles
they swallow to aid digestion. Lead ammunition and tackle used
in other forms of hunting and fishing still poisons the birds
and other wildlife that ingest it--either swallowing it like
waterfowl or scavenging on carcasses and gut piles containing
embedded lead shot or fragments of lead ammunition.
The bill does carve out an exception for declines in wildlife
populations on a specific unit of land caused discretely by
lead ammunition or tackle. However, this is an impossible
standard to meet as population monitoring data is not available
at the unit scale in most cases.
The bill also allows for the handful of actions taken by a
State wildlife agency to control lead ammunition and tackle to
continue. However, State wildlife agencies have historically
not taken adequate measures to protect wildlife or educate
sportspeople about lead alternatives (with a very few notable
exceptions). State wildlife agencies, however, have no
jurisdiction over National Parks, National Forests, the
National Landscape Conservation System, the Public Lands
System, or National Wildlife Refuges--it is an inherently
federal responsibility to manage and conserve these areas.
In a survey of all 50 State wildlife agency
websites in 2022, only 8 had easily accessible information
about lead toxicity and alternatives
The National Parks Service lists lead ammunition
as the greatest threat to the California Condor
The United States Geological Survey lists lead
ammunition as a population-level threat to Bald and Golden
Eagles
Lead has been shown to impair the recovery of the
still-fragile Bald Eagle
Lead poisoning affects over 75 species of bird
annually
An estimated 16 million US birds are killed
annually by lead poisoning (though this figure is likely an
underrepresentation)
Mammalian carnivores are also at risk; poisonings
are documented in Black Bears, Grizzly Bears, Cougars among
many others
The Presidential Memorandum on Restoring Trust in Government
Through Scientific Integrity and Evidence-Based Policymaking
directs the heads of all departments and agencies to ``make
evidence-based decisions guided by the best available science
and data.'' The best available science and data are clear; lead
poisoning is a major threat for wildlife. We urge you to defer
to the expertise of the government scientists and experts that
are enmeshed in the issue.
Non-toxic steel, copper, and alloy bullets and non-lead fishing
tackle are affordable and available in all 50 states. Hunters
and anglers in states and areas that have restrictions or have
already banned lead have made successful transitions to non-
toxic ammunition and tackle. Over a dozen manufacturers of
bullets have designed and now market many varieties of non-
lead, non-toxic bullets and shot with satisfactory to superior
ballistic characteristics. Moreover, sportspeople that use non-
lead ammunition carry on the proud tradition of wildlife
conservation by preventing animals from being exposed to lead.
We believe the pathway to less-toxic environments and fewer
wildlife poisonings is paved with more sportsperson education,
widely accessible non-toxic ammunition and tackle exchange
programs, informed decisions by individuals and communities,
and regulatory action where applicable.
Decisions on public lands lead prohibitions fall squarely
within the responsibilities of the Secretaries of Interior and
Agriculture. H.R. 615 is not a bill which would protect
sportspeople; it is legislation which encumbers conservation
personnel and comes at the cost of millions of needless
wildlife poisonings every year. The Citizens, State Wildlife
Agencies, States, and Federal Agencies of America should all
act within the best interests of wildlife health. H.R. 615 is
not in service of any of them.
We strongly urge you to oppose H.R. 615 and consider any
legislation or regulation which creates toxic ammunition and
tackle exchange programs, sportsperson education initiatives,
or decreases the likelihood of wildlife poisonings from lead.
Sincerely,
American Bird Conservancy
Center for Biological
Diversity Earthjustice
Hawk Migration Association
of North America International Bird Rescue
National Wildlife Refuge
Association National Wildlife Rehabilitators
Association
Public Employees for
Environmental
Responsibility Sierra Club
*****
H.R. 2689: Trust in Government Act of 2023
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) strongly
supports H.R. 2689, which would, among other things, require the
Secretary of the Interior to design and deliver a centralized,
modernized electronic permitting system to accept and process permit
applications.
H.R. 2689 also expresses Congress' intent that federal agencies
shall improve the overall economy, efficiency, and management of
government, operations, and activities, reduce the paperwork of
agencies, and provide high-quality services to the public. It directs
the Office of Management and Budget to provide oversight of these
efforts by providing guidance to implement and achieve the purposes of
this Act and by providing oversight of agency efforts to improve
federal services and the customer experience.
Building trust in government is a multi-faceted and challenging
task. This bill would address an essential part of this task--ensuring
federal agencies continually work to improve the customer experience.
According to recent research, as much as 67% of trust in government can
be explained by customer experience.\18\ This means improving the
public's trust in government happens interaction by interaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-and-social-sector/
our-insights/Customer-Experience-in-the-Public-Sector
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the world's rapidly changing technological landscape, the
public expects federal agencies to keep up with the private sector in
how it interacts with the public, such as how it provides the public
with information and allows access to information, as well as how it
accepts and receives information, such as permit applications, from the
public.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has already done a significant amount
of work to improve its customers' experience by updating its website
and to make it more accessible. For example, the Services and Permits
sections of their website have steadily improved over the past several
years and provide a much better customer experience than existed not
too long ago.
This work is based on the White House Executive Order on
transforming the federal customer experience.\19\ This Executive Order
also calls on the Fish and Wildlife Service to provide more of their
transactions online, including for special use permits for National
Wildlife Refuge System locations and several high-volume application
forms required for businesses that import, export, or re-export
animals, plants, and their products internationally. These transactions
can take weeks or months to process and require multiple paper forms to
be mailed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/
2021/12/13/executive-order-on-transforming-federal-customer-experience-
and-service-delivery-to-rebuild-trust-in-government/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We strongly support the Trust in Government Act because it focuses
on improving the design and delivery of services, focusing on the
actual experience of the people it is meant to serve.
H.R. 2872: To amend the Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2013 to
allow States to issue electronic stamps under such Act, and for other
purposes
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) strongly
supports H.R. 2872, which would allow more people to get Duck Stamps
electronically.
Hunters have always played an integral part in conserving America's
natural resources. The success of the Federal Duck Stamp Program
illustrates this commitment. For nearly 90 years, by buying Duck
Stamps, waterfowl hunters have supported the conservation of more than
6 million acres of strategic wetland habitat.
As the Fish and Wildlife Service notes on their website, while
waterfowl hunters 16 years of age or older are required to purchase
them, anyone can contribute to conservation by buying Duck Stamps. In
addition to serving as a hunting license and conservation tool, a
current Federal Duck Stamp is a free pass into any national wildlife
refuge that charges an entry fee. Because nearly all the proceeds are
used to conserve habitat for birds and other wildlife, birders, nature
photographers, and other outdoor enthusiasts buy Duck Stamps to help
ensure that they can always see wildlife at their favorite outdoor
spots.
Allowing States to issue electronic duck stamps will make Duck
Stamps more accessible to people and help raise revenue that will
benefit hunters and wildlife.
______
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Whitehouse. I now recognize Mr.
Todd Adkins for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF TODD ADKINS, VICE PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS,
THE SPORTSMEN'S ALLIANCE, COLUMBUS, OHIO
Mr. Adkins. Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, members
of the Committee, it is my absolute pleasure to be here today
to voice my organization's strong support for H.R. 615, the
Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act of 2023. My name
is Todd Adkins. I am Vice President of Government Affairs for
the Sportsmen's Alliance.
We have already heard a lot about the story I am going to
tell today, and that is a story where hunters and anglers have
served as the conservation backbone of this country for now
well over a century. I am not going to go into the details I
provide in my written testimony, but H.R. 615 provides critical
safeguards that Representative Wittman talked about when
agencies contemplate the idea of banning lead ammunition and
fishing tackle, thereby limiting access to our public lands.
It is a very simple bill. It is not really complex. It
doesn't suggest the answer one way or another on whether or not
lead will be banned. But what it says is the science to support
that move has to come from the specific site that you are
seeking the ban upon.
Again, this isn't denying science. This is admitting that
we have to put sideboards on it when, as Representative Wittman
said, occasionally you will see justifications thousands of
miles away.
We have been down this road before. Often in rulemakings
regarding the lead issue, Fish and Wildlife Service will cite
1991 as the first year of the nationwide ban on lead ammunition
for waterfowl hunting; 1976 is a better year to look at, that
is actually the first year of the initial phase-in of lead bans
on lead ammunition for hunting waterfowl, 1976.
I lived through two of the phase-ins, both as a
recreational hunter in my home state of Michigan in 1977 and as
a professional hunting guide on Maryland's Eastern Shore years
later. I can tell you what the community said, and I know
members of the community that left the field.
I am not saying that that issue is dispositive, one way or
the other. But what I am saying is Representative Wittman's
bill puts these critical sideboards on this decision-making
process so that we know, when we limit access by limiting
hunters because of rising costs, that decision is made with
clear science, of evidence that is occurring at the site where
we actually have a concern.
You look at duck hunter numbers in this country, beginning
in 1976. A terrible slide in duck hunting numbers, waterfowl
hunting numbers took place, upwards of 45 percent over a 15-
year period. Now, that is anecdotal evidence. There were lots
of reasons that waterfowl hunters left the field. We understand
that. But it is interesting to note that overall hunter numbers
peaked in 1982, while waterfowl hunters had been dropping off
the face of the map because the initial phase-in of those lead
bans was 1976.
H.R. 615 is really important. And when we look at the most
recent hunt fish rule, the station-specific rule where Patoka
River National Wildlife Refuge was the initial refuge that will
implement the lead ban in 2026, managers at the site within
their environmental assessment point out, ``We are aware of no
problems associated with lead exposure on this refuge over the
last 20 years.''
So, what H.R. 615 would do in that case, instead of citing
to the best available science from thousands of miles away, it
would simply say, ``Let's establish science here at Patoka
Refuge before we implement a policy that we know will
discourage and stop hunters and anglers from going afield.''
Many witnesses today have talked about the financial
contributions made by hunters and anglers in this country. We
can't imagine the system we have now without them. So, our
recommendation is, this is why H.R. 615 should be supported, is
that we have to put careful safeguards around this question. It
is not about whether or not lead is toxic. That question has
been answered. It is whether or not lead is a specific problem
at a unit of public lands where we know we have to make a
decision, and sometimes that decision will be difficult.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Adkins follows:]
Prepared Statement of Todd Adkins, Vice President of Government
Affairs, the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance
on H.R. 615, ``Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act of 2023''
Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the
Subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of
H.R. 615, the Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act of 2023. My
name is Todd Adkins, and I serve as Vice President of Government
Affairs for the Sportsmen's Alliance, an organization that was founded
in 1978 to protect and promote America's first and best
conservationists, sportsmen and women.
To place the importance of H.R. 615 in proper context, it is
critical to acknowledge the importance of America's hunters and anglers
to our entire system of fish and wildlife management, often referred to
as the North American Model. Although not recognized enough in today's
tension-driven and combative 24-hour news cycle, the North American
Model is an amazing success story. Restored fish and wildlife
populations, a vast system of public lands for all to enjoy, critical
habitat protection, and dedicated agencies devoted to protecting the
great outdoors are just a few of the countless benefits of the system
we created here in America. Many refer to ours as the most successful
conservation model in the world, and I agree.
This system--the North American Model--has its roots in the late
19th and early 20th century, when members of the hunting and fishing
communities came together to help forge a new conservation ethos in
America, one that would not only protect fish and wildlife, but also
secure the robust funding mechanisms necessary to underwrite our
commitment to conservation in perpetuity. It is a remarkable story. But
this story can only be told by recognizing the critical role played by
the hunting and fishing communities in pulling it all together.
It was hunters and anglers that were there to help establish the
state fish and wildlife agencies at the outset. We were there to
support the creation of licensing and permitting systems, along with
regulating season lengths, bag limits, and methods of take. And yes, we
were first in line to provide the funding to make it all work. Through
state license fees, stamps, permits and federal excise taxes under the
Pittman-Robertson \1\ and Dingell-Johnson \2\ Acts, hunters and anglers
have directly contributed tens of billions of dollars to conservation
efforts nationwide. In FY 2022 alone, Pittman-Robertson accounted for
more than $1.1B and Dingell-Johnson appx. $400M for state fish and
wildlife agencies. If we then add our countless hours of volunteering
and ongoing financial support for conservation organizations
nationwide, the total impact of sportsmen and women is at once
incalculable and irreplaceable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 16 U.S.C. 669 et seq. The Pittman-Robertson Act, also known as
Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, established a federal excise
tax on firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment to fund wildlife
conservation in 1937.
\2\ 16 U.S.C. 777 et seq. The Dingell-Johnson Act, also known as
the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act, established a federal
excise tax on fishing equipment to fund sport fish conservation in
1950. It was expanded to include recreational boats and motor boat fuel
in 1984 with passage of the Wallop-Breaux Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Sportsmen's Alliance recognizes and honors this history and
proudly defends America's hunters and anglers and the rich conservation
tradition we helped build. At the same time, however, we fully
recognize that there are some who don't have the same view and seek to
remove hunters and anglers from the landscape altogether. This is what
brings us here today to voice our strong support of H.R. 615.
H.R. 615, with elegant simplicity, establishes important safeguards
to protect access for hunters and anglers to our public lands. These
safeguards are becoming increasingly critical as animal extremist
groups continue to pressure federal land managers to restrict hunting
and angling through whatever means possible. Although there are many
attacks, among the issues favored by the animal extremist groups in
recent times is to press for lead ammunition and fishing tackle bans on
public lands. H.R. 615 addresses this issue directly.
The bill protects access by ensuring that the Departments of
Agriculture and Interior engage in careful evaluation of the effects of
lead exposure for a specific unit of public land (under agency control)
before banning the use of lead ammunition or fishing tackle on such
property. In addition, the bill requires the Departments to maintain
consistency with state law/regulation and coordinate with state
agencies as they develop such policies.
In this way, H.R. 615 only requires the Departments of Agriculture
and Interior to engage in the type of scientific inquiry our community
has always supported. A major pillar of the North American Model is
that science drive fish and wildlife decision making, and H.R. 615
structures decisions to ban lead ammunition or fishing tackle with a
specific fact-finding process before implementing such a policy change.
Moreover, as the primary managers of fish and wildlife resources,
we believe that state fish and wildlife agencies should always be part
of the decision-making process, including hunting and fishing policy on
federal lands. By recognizing the importance of state agencies in this
process, H.R. 615 rightly requires the Departments of Agriculture and
Interior to include the state agencies or at least ensure that any
policy to ban lead ammunition or fishing tackle is consistent with
state law or policy where the unit is located.
The safeguards of H.R. 615 are critical going forward because we
have been here before and know that lead ammunition and fishing tackle
bans will result in the loss of hunters and anglers from the landscape.
While animal extremists would applaud this loss, it is imperative that
everyone who believes in fish and wildlife conservation understands
that when we lose hunters and anglers, we lose the financial backbone
of our entire system. A loss of even 5% of this nation's hunters and
anglers will have a profound and staggering effect on conservation
funding at the federal and state levels.
Although it is common for many to refer to 1991 as the year lead
ammunition was banned for waterfowl hunting in the United States, a
better year to focus on is 1976, the first year of the initial ``phase
in'' of a proposed lead ammunition ban by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), starting on the Atlantic Flyway, or along the East
coast. That was followed by the Mississippi Flyway in 1977, the Central
Flyway in 1978, and the Pacific Flyway in 1979.
These ``phase in'' bans were initially limited within the states to
``hot spots'' where hunters congregated while waterfowl hunting,
typically state or federal public lands where waterfowl hunting success
was high, and thus, hunting pressure followed. For a state like
Michigan, as an example, the majority of waterfowl harvested in any
given year is from the ``hot spots'' where lead was banned beginning in
1977. So even though a ``phase in,'' these initial bans were felt
across the entire waterfowl hunting community.
It is instructive to review waterfowl hunter numbers from this
period forward to analyze the effect of the initial lead ammunition
bans on hunter recruitment and retention. According to FWS, there were
2,207,318 duck stamps sold in 1975-76. Ten years later, that number had
fallen to 1,680,972 (85-86), and by the time of the nationwide lead ban
in 1991-92, the number had cratered to 1,298,649. While duck stamp
sales are an imprecise method to count waterfowl hunter numbers in any
given year, this stark trendline indicates that a very significant
number of waterfowl hunters were leaving the community over the period,
of this there can be no doubt. These numbers point to losses of
approximately 24% over ten years and 42% over 15 years. This is
striking when one considers that total hunter numbers peaked in 1982,
after the extreme slide among waterfowl hunters was well underway.
I experienced two phase-in lead bans as a waterfowl hunter. I grew
up in Michigan and regularly hunted at one of the ``hot spots''
identified for the initial lead ammunition ban in 1977. I was there on
opening day in 1977 as all of us wondered what it would be like to hunt
with steel shot. Then later, I was a professional waterfowl hunting
guide on Maryland's Eastern Shore during the ``phase in'' of the lead
ban there. In both cases, I can attest that cost was a factor for many
hunters in making the decision to give up waterfowl hunting. I don't
need a scientific study to know this, I was there, and it was the same
in two very different parts of the country, hundreds of miles apart.
This was particularly true for those I knew with limited income and
resources.
We know this from our own experiences, not just for hunting and
fishing, but all human activities and behavior. When you make something
more expensive, people will do it less. Price sensitivity is real, and
hunters and anglers aren't unique in this respect, they are just like
everyone else. The difference, of course, is that when hunters and
anglers decide to give up going afield, the cost to conservation can be
substantial. This is why our community insists on rigorous science and
data supporting any policy decision that will drive hunters and anglers
from the fold.
The ``2022-23 Station-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing
Regulations,'' (``Hunt/Fish Rule'') promulgated by FWS,\3\ is an
example of how H.R. 615 will protect hunters and anglers if the bill is
passed, but allow me to explain. The Hunt/Fish Rule is an annual
rulemaking conducted by FWS to propose, and then finalize, hunting and
fishing rules for the nation's National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs). FWS
will often announce the new Hunt/Fish Rule in late spring or early
summer, and then finalize the Rule early in the fall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 2022-2023 Station-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing
Regulations, 87 Fed. Reg. 57108 (September 16, 2022)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within the 2022-23 Hunt/Fish Rule, FWS announced a plan to ban lead
ammunition and fishing on several refuges in future years, while also
suggesting that a more robust plan for broader implementation might be
in the works, because the rule ``. . . is not expected to add to the
use of lead on refuges beyond 2026 . . .'' \4\ While FWS announced
plans for a number of future bans on various NWRs, the 2023 Hunt/Fish
Rule finalized the lead ammunition and fishing tackle ban at Patoka
River NWR in Indiana, starting in 2026. Other NWR lead bans will be
announced in the 2023-24 Hunt/Fish Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Id. at 57112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a critical part of the administrative record, the Environmental
Assessment (EA) conducted by Patoka River NWR FWS personnel (September
2022) \5\ is extremely helpful in reviewing the overall approach taken
by FWS when the agency analyzes where a lead ban is necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ FWS-HQ-NWRS-2022-0055-16104; Patoka River NWRMA_IN_Hunt and
Fish Package All Documents_Final_2022e
Although the Patoka River EA uses the phrase ``the best available
science'' in describing the need to ban lead ammunition and fishing
tackle, the EA contains admissions that directly undermine this chosen
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
course of action:
``No documented wildlife or aquatic species deaths have been
associated with lead poisoning on the refuge over the last 20
years, so it is unlikely that the impacts of lead entering the
environment from fishing and hunting activities are causing
direct mortality of wildlife and aquatic species'' (page 29).
``. . . there have been no reports of wildlife that have been
impacted by lead poisoning on the refuge for at least the last
20 years or longer, based on staff experience and records''
(page 19).
And when discussing the 4-year gap between the final rule and 2026,
when the lead ban will take effect:
``Until such time that the restrictions take place, added lead
to the environment from the fishing and hunting activities is
not expected to cause more than negligible impact to wildlife
and aquatic species'' (page 29).
``Given the hunting practices and amount of take estimated
using lead ammunition, the amount of lead entering the
environment is expected to be insignificant'' (page 33).
``. . . impacts to migratory birds and eagles from the use of
lead and hunting activities . . . are likely negligible'' (page
33).
These statements illustrate that the lead ban rule at Patoka River
NWR was not driven by the scientific realities on the ground, at the
Refuge. The decision was made to implement the ban, even though the
impact of lead use by hunters and anglers is ``negligible'' or
``insignificant,'' leading to ``no documented wildlife or aquatic
species deaths'' over a 20-year time period.
Citing to ``the best available science'' doesn't create a magic
shortcut in the scientific method. Specific facts and real experience
matters, especially when engaged in policy-making that has the
potential to diminish conservation dollars by forcing hunters and
anglers off the landscape, impacting the health and abundance of all
fish and wildlife. Evidence derived from facts on the ground, when
taken together with the experience of fish and wildlife professionals
at the site, is decisively strongly than fish and wildlife management
theory generated from afar or from unrelated ``best available
science.''
Equally as troubling is how the Patoka River EA raises but discards
the ``. . . negative economic impacts for socioeconomically
disadvantaged hunters and anglers who must comply with the
requirements.'' \6\ Although we appreciate the discussion, this section
of the analysis is replete with problems, inaccuracies, and wishful
thinking that fails to take into account the realities of the market
now or how the market will react in response to lead ammunition and
fishing tackle bans or restrictions in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Id. at 51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EA states that ``. . . the price of non-lead ammunition is the
same or less than that of premium lead ammunition.'' \7\ This is at
best very misleading. While it is true that a small handful of premium
ammunition offerings can approach or even eclipse a few nonlead
alternatives in price, lead ammunition across all classifications is
much less expensive than nonlead alternatives. The point is not whether
a hunter may be able to find nonlead ammunition that is less expensive
than a small segment of the premium lead ammunition market, a price
sensitive hunter will always find lead ammunition to be the least
expensive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The transition for anglers will be equally as problematic.
Thankfully, the EA agrees with this, stating that ``the cost of lead
tackle is still much less than the lead-free alternatives.'' \8\ To
counter these stated problems, however, the FWS cites mitigation
measures which are neither fully defined nor described. An education
campaign is discussed briefly, but how this will mitigate rising costs
is unknown. A fair reading of FWS' claims regarding this topic suggests
the agency might not take the potential loss of hunter and anglers as
seriously as we do. As hunters and anglers remain priority users of the
entire NWR system, we remain hopeful this is not the case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More importantly, however, there is a fatal limitation to FWS'
entire line of reasoning on cost. In the Patoka River EA and numerous
other rulemakings,\9\ FWS continues to treat the question of cost as if
the ammunition and fishing tackle market will retain current supply and
demand dynamics between lead and nonlead offerings as the ``phase in''
of the proposed lead bans expand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Hunt/Fish Rule, supra, note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This cannot be so, however, because the cost of the underlying
materials is so vastly different. As nonlead alternatives take up
larger segments of the ammunition and fishing tackle markets due to
additional bans, the cost of the nonlead alternatives will increase in
response to rising demand. Lead is currently priced on the open market
at around 44 cents a pound where copper (as one example of an
alternative) is currently approaching almost four dollars a pound. This
is an order of magnitude difference that will result in a significant
burden on hunters and anglers as the ``phase in'' of lead bans is
expanded by FWS. There can be little doubt that as this burden
increases (rising cost), a number of hunters and anglers will simply be
priced out of participating.
This is why H.R. 615 is so vitally important. The Patoka River NWR
EA, as a foundational document to the entire 2022-23 Hunt/Fish
rulemaking process, illustrates a number of glaring weaknesses in the
scientific method deployed by FWS in developing the lead ammunition and
fishing tackle ban for the Patoka River NWR, which presumably, will be
repeated in the 2023-24 Hunt/Fish Rule for additional lead bans on
other NWRs. By FWS' own words, exposure to lead ammunition and fishing
tackle is not a problem for any aquatic or wildlife species at the
Patoka River Refuge.
Instead, FWS' cites to the ``best available science,'' where the
agency favors a number of studies which tend to show that lead is
indeed toxic but routinely fail to establish a causal relationship
between lead ammunition or fishing tackle use and negative consequences
for fish and wildlife populations.\10\ As an example, FWS referenced
one paper in the 2022-23 Hunt/Fish rule where the authors found, and
FWS agreed, that while eagle populations are among our greatest success
stories of wildlife recovery in the modern era, with the bald eagle
population more than quadrupling since 2009,\11\ lead ammunition and
fishing tackle should be further restricted because lead is suppressing
the overall growth curve of the population. Limiting, I might add, by
an extremely small percentage point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See, e.g., Fallon, J.A., P.T. Redig, T.A. Miller, M. Lanzone,
and T.E. Katzner. 2017. Guidelines for evaluation and treatment of lead
poisoning of wild raptors. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:205-211.
\11\ https://www.fws.gov/species/bald-eagle-haliaeetus-
leucocephalus
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In many ways this comes down to a difference of priorities. If the
``best available science'' is utilized to regulate or prohibit
activities even where a wildlife population has quadrupled in a short
period of time and has reached what everyone agrees is a fully
recovered status, then I'm not sure where we draw the line. We know
that wind farms kill eagles and other raptors, we know that automobiles
kill neotropical migratory birds, ungulates, and a multitude of other
species. Bicycle riding, hiking, camping can all be described as
``limiters'' on population growth of one species or another when you
get right down to it. Just about every policy choice made in these
hallowed halls recognizes that priorities must be set. And in our view,
unless you have the science clearly in hand, you must not promulgate
regulations that will lead to the guaranteed loss of hunters and
anglers from the landscape.
This is why the safeguards contained in the Protecting Access to
Hunters and Anglers Act of 2023--H.R. 615--are vitally important going
forward. This important legislation would remedy the failures I've
described throughout my testimony. And by doing so, this bill will
ensure that the increased costs associated with the alternatives to
lead ammunition and fishing tackle--driving hunters and anglers from
the field--will only be required when we know there are direct and
negative consequences to fish and wildlife populations that will be
mitigated by such a move.
I thank you Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of
the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify here today on this very
important subject. I look forward to any questions you may have about
my remarks.
______
Mr. Bentz. Thank you for your testimony, and I want to
thank all the witnesses for their testimony. I will now
recognize Members for 5 minutes each for their questions. I
will begin by recognizing the Chair of the Natural Resources
Committee, Bruce Westerman, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Bentz, thank you to the
witnesses for being here today to talk about some very
important legislation that I know is not only important to me,
but many Members of Congress.
And as we think about Mr. Wittman's bill and, Mr. Adkins,
as you laid out in your testimony, sportsmen and women
contribute hundreds of millions of dollars each year to
wildlife conservation through the Pittman-Robinson and Dingell-
Johnson programs.
And we also know that, from past experiences, that when the
cost of sportsmen's activities go up, participation goes down.
Kind of a supply and demand principle, which will inevitably
have consequences for wildlife conservation funding through
decreased license sales and reduced purchases.
In your opinion, do proponents of lead bans have viable
alternatives to offset the loss in revenue from decreased
sportsmen's participation?
Mr. Adkins. Part of the problem is they won't talk about
that as clearly as they need to. While we understand that
increased costs will drive people from the field, that just has
to be accepted as true. What the percentage is is unclear at
this point. But when you look at some of these regulatory
proposals, they pass over it, ``Well, we did that with duck
hunting, and there are still duck hunters around.''
I believe because of the effects that any increase in costs
will have on hunters and anglers, the financial backbone, we
have to spend some time with that question and not just suggest
that everything will remain static, and everything is going to
be fine, and the world won't change. We know it will change if
you increase costs.
And because of many of the issues that have already been
raised, most of the lead ammunition used now, the vast majority
of it, is recycled material, whereas copper, tungsten, all of
these other materials have to be mined. Whether or not they
will be banned in the future, we don't know. But the cost will
go up, it will drive people from the field. The price of gas
will drive people from their cars. It just will happen.
So, we ask, frankly, Fish and Wildlife Service or any of
the regulatory agencies, spend some time on this question
because the impact on Pittman-Robinson and Dingell-Johnson
might be very significant.
Mr. Westerman. All right. And just to go into this a little
bit deeper, you talked about the incredible North American
model, the American model for conservation, and how that has
been copied in other places. Just explain again why hunting and
fishing are important for the North American model.
Mr. Adkins. Well, as I point out in my testimony, we don't
like to talk about good news a lot. It is just the nature of
the news cycle, right? But at the end of the day, we can
rejoice in the North American wildlife model. Now, some groups
may disagree with me, but we can rejoice in that story.
And it started in the late 19th century, and hunters and
anglers were part of that story, a central part of that story,
where we moved into this new kind of ethos of conservation,
being conservation-minded, with hunters and anglers agreeing
right from the get-go we are going to be part of this and, most
importantly, we are going to be a financial backer of this
entire system.
So, citizens throughout this country now enjoy these
abundant fish and wildlife resources and access to public lands
and state agencies that do great work for all of us. Hunters
and anglers have been there every step of the way. And a lot of
Americans don't even understand that.
So, our central point is, if we are going to purposely
raise the cost, putting the toxicity of lead on the side, we
have to understand there will be other costs we have to take a
look at.
Mr. Westerman. I whole heartedly agree. I am going to have
to move on, and I am adamantly opposed to blanket lead bans on
national wildlife refuges, and I think it is going to hurt the
system.
Mr. Strickler, I wanted to ask you quickly. In your
testimony, you expressed reservations about this bill's
requirement that Fish and Wildlife Service would need to
consult and follow what states are doing when it comes to
ammunition use. That requirement makes sense to me so hunters
aren't stuck trying to navigate through a patchwork of
regulations, and since states are the primary fish and wildlife
agencies.
It also runs contrary to the Fish and Wildlife Service's
proposal that Congress grant the ability to enter into Good
Neighbor Authority agreements, which is something I think we
really need to work on in Congress.
I am running out of time here, but the vegetation
management, you are saying that Good Neighbor Authority is more
about vegetation management, but I would say vegetation
management is habitat management, which is recovering wildlife.
And we talk a lot about RAWA in this Committee, and we want
to do a new bill, but I would probably propose to call it RAHA,
Restoring America's Habitat Act, because that will do more to
restore wildlife than anything else.
And I am out of time. Sorry I didn't get to the question. I
yield back.
Mr. Bentz. I thank you. The Chair recognizes Ranking Member
Huffman for 5 minutes.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Strickler, I would like to start with you on this issue
of CBRA. And, again, I am not unsympathetic to the situation
that the Mayor and Mr. Rouzer are describing. I would like to
find them a way to reliably, cost effectively, and sustainably
get the dredging and sediment management that they need.
But why is it so important that we do that in consultation
with the Federal agencies so that, as conditions change, we
make sure that we are getting it right over time?
Mr. Strickler. Ranking Member Huffman, thank you for the
question.
I come from the state level most recently, and when I was
down in Virginia, part of my job was the Coastal Chief
Resilience Officer for the state. Obviously, we had a lot of
coastal area in Virginia, a lot of CBRA zones, and a lot of
vulnerable coastal habitats. And those are, obviously, very
important not just to protect coastal communities, but to
protect fish and wildlife resources that recreational and
commercial operations depend on.
So, I think it is critically important that we have good
consultation, good communication between folks who are doing
projects that involve dredging and beach nourishment and
agencies that are responsible for protecting wildlife and
wildlife habitat.
Mr. Huffman. And the flip side of that is if you create a
blanket carve-out even for one area, that is sort of an ongoing
lack of consultation, and might you run into situations where
circumstances change and impacts that didn't used to be there
are suddenly present, and you might have to modify things, and
consultation can make that all work together? Am I missing
something?
Mr. Strickler. No, sir. That is spot on. These are very
dynamic systems. And, like you, I don't take Mayor Mills'
comments and concerns lightly here. These are challenging
circumstances for coastal communities, but we need to make sure
that we are managing these systems in a responsible way that
doesn't have unintended consequences.
Mr. Huffman. OK, let's talk about lead. My understanding of
this bill is that it is a rather sweeping prohibition on using
restrictions on lead on these Federal lands, refuges, BLM
lands, Forest Service lands. There is a section that provides
an exception, theoretically, but it seems like an exception
that would almost never apply. You would have to have unit-
specific studies with unit-specific impacts narrowly tailored
in your restriction to that unit only, and it would all have to
be blessed by State wildlife officials and consistent with
State laws.
Talk about why that would be problematic from the
perspective of Federal land and resource managers.
Mr. Strickler. Yes, sir. Thank you. First let me just say
the states are critical partners in the work that the Fish and
Wildlife Service does in general, and specifically on the
National Wildlife Refuge System. And we work very closely with
the states to align rules and regulations to make things simple
for the public.
But at the end of the day, there is a national interest in
these conservation lands, even if they are located within a
state or straddle a couple of states, that we need to be
cognizant of, and that the Fish and Wildlife Service has a
responsibility to steward those lands.
So, partnering with the states is one thing. Having to ask
them for permission is quite another.
Mr. Huffman. Yes. One other limitation on that exception
that I saw is that I believe the finding that wildlife is being
specifically impaired by lead would be necessary, that it would
have to be the major contributor to the impairment of wildlife.
We may have situations where other factors have driven an
animal to the brink of extinction, and you can't afford to let
them be exposed to lead, given that vulnerability. Isn't that
right?
Mr. Strickler. Yes, sir, that is true.
Mr. Huffman. All right. Well, thank you.
Mr. Whitehouse, let me just throw this over to you. Why
would such a sweeping limitation on Federal land and wildlife
managers be problematic?
Mr. Whitehouse. Thank you, Ranking Member Huffman. From our
perspective, I think there is no national lead ban on hunting
on Federal lands. And from our perspective, the Federal land
managers and the Federal agencies should be the ones to
determine, based upon public input, how to manage that land.
And as you mentioned, the studies that this bill would require
just cannot be done. It would be impossible, given the
parameters of those studies.
Mr. Huffman. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Chairman, I
would like to, as I yield back, just enter into the record a
recent study involving--well, maybe not so recent, I think it
is from 2003--but involving mortality of common loons who were
exposed to fishing weights. Mr. Wittman is absolutely right
that condors aren't known to dive. I think we can stipulate to
that. But loons are. And this study showed that loons exposed
to lead fishing weights had 50 percent mortality in the adults.
And the funny or gross thing about it, depending on how you
look at it, is condors will eat a dead loon. So, I will just
request unanimous consent to enter this into the record.
Mr. Bentz. Without objection.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. Wittman for
5 minutes.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
our witnesses for joining us today.
Mr. Strickler, I want to begin with you. You do have a
state background. You talked about the importance of state
inputs. Let me go back to 2010 and 2012, when the EPA
entertained two petitions for the banning of the production and
sale of lead-based ammunition and fishing tackle and denied
both of those.
Do you believe the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service then
disagrees with the EPA's determination on denial of those bans
on lead ammunition and fishing tackle?
Mr. Strickler. Congressman Wittman, it is good to see you.
Thank you for the question. The Fish and Wildlife Service, I
don't believe, would disagree with that. It is not in our
purview. And, certainly, the manufacture of items isn't
something that we have jurisdiction over.
Mr. Wittman. OK. So, you are not in opposition to their
denial.
Second of all, you talked about the importance of state
inputs. Obviously, coming from a state level, do you believe
then, based on your experience in Virginia, that you are in
agreement with a one-size-fits-all? So, something that may be
adversarial to Virginia's interest and protecting its wildlife,
do you believe then that a national standard imposed on
Virginia, you would have been in agreement in your role there
as Secretary of Natural Resources in Virginia that a Federal
rule dictating something to Virginia that was against its
interests, you would have been in favor of that?
Mr. Strickler. Congressman, speaking hypothetically, I
think if there was something that we determined that was
against our interest in Virginia, certainly we would have
something to say about that with the Fish and Wildlife Service.
And I think we maintained a very good relationship between
DWR and Fish and Wildlife when I was there. So, certainly, I
would expect for our concerns to be heard and have a legitimate
conversation about it.
Mr. Wittman. So, now, within that context, within looking
at it and saying, hey, states' ideas and thoughts about Federal
regulation should have a role, it should be in some congruence
with what states give input to the Federal Government, as the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and you point in here that you are
looking to input from--you speak about one particular body, you
didn't speak about any others, and there are a lot of others
out there that are commenting on this, the Hunting and Fishing
Conservation Council, which is a Federal advisory council that
is appointed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, so
obviously, it is somewhat myopic in its scope. That is only one
viewpoint.
Can you give me this perspective, then? So, that is the
place where you are going for input. First of all, I want to
know where are the other places that you are getting input
from. And based upon, hopefully, a broad perspective of input,
and placing the value on states' perspective on this,
especially as it relates to instances where lead is
specifically of issue in their state, lead fishing tackle and
lead ammunition.
Can you give me an instance where the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service has not promulgated a regulation based upon
input from user groups, from constituents, from stakeholders,
from states in relation to the perspective of what you speak
about the importance of state input, and then at least the only
single entity that you pointed to that you are seeking input
from?
Give me your perspective about how those things come
together.
Mr. Strickler. Yes, Congressman, thank you for that. That
is a very important question. I apologize. When I made my
opening statement, I meant to also say--and I thought I did,
but I apologize if I didn't--we are working actively with the
states on this through the Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies. There is a separate subcommittee set up that Fish and
Wildlife Service and leadership are working together to talk
through the issue of lead broadly.
And it is not just about regulation. It is about voluntary
approaches and incentives, and things like that. So, I think
there is really good communication there. And we absolutely
value the states' input on this, and certainly want to continue
working with them.
Mr. Wittman. Can you give me an instance where the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service has gone to public notice on
promulgating a regulation and, based upon input from
stakeholders or states or others, has not promulgated that
regulation?
Mr. Strickler. Right off the top of my head, Congressman, I
can't give you an example. I know this does happen----
Mr. Wittman. So, within that context, then, if you can't
point to an instance there, and you say, well, we are going to
take all this input, yet the input really doesn't make a
difference once you go to public notification for a regulation,
isn't the outcome sort of predetermined? You go through the
statutory requirements of saying, hey, we want your input, but
really, the input doesn't have any impact on the final
promulgation of that regulation. Is that correct?
Mr. Strickler. No, Mr. Wittman, I would disagree, and we
would be happy to get you a list for the record of those
instances.
Mr. Wittman. But if you disagree, then you should be able
to point to an instance where at some point the public input
has actually had an impact on the regulation. Either it changed
or you didn't promulgate it.
I would love for the record for you to give us back an
instance where there has been some change to a regulation or
the non-promulgation of a regulation after it has gone to
public notification.
Mr. Strickler. We would be happy to do that.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Wittman. The Chair recognizes Ms.
Porter for 5 minutes.
Ms. Porter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My bill
includes permitting reform. Yes, I am a Democrat willing to
talk about one of Republicans' favorite issues. That is because
my bill identifies an area where we can cut through the
partisan noise to solve a problem and deliver better
government.
Mr. Strickler, we all fill out applications. When was the
last time you applied for a job with a handwritten application
or hired people with a handwritten application?
Mr. Strickler. Representative Porter, it has been quite
some time.
Ms. Porter. Quite some time. My son, Luke, has to fill out
college applications coming up. Do you think he will do them on
paper, or will he do them online?
Mr. Strickler. I would certainly hope he will do those
online.
Ms. Porter. Me too. The government needs to catch up to the
rest of the world here. I fill out my kid's permission slips
for fifth grade field trips online. We certainly ought to be
able to marshal the resources of the Federal Government to do
most types of permitting online.
Whether you are applying for a fishing license or a
drilling permit, you should be able to fill that out pretty
easily online, and then submit an electronic application and
keep track of the status of your application. This is a common-
sense reform for the Interior Department. And we know this
because you all at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are
already creating the model to do it.
Mr. Stickler, can you describe in a little bit more detail
the Fish and Wildlife Service's ePermitting system and the
functions it offers? I know you mentioned it in your testimony
that you have 50,000 users. I would love to hear more about
what it is doing, what its scope is, and what its potential for
expansion is.
Mr. Strickler. Yes, ma'am. Thank you for the question.
The Fish and Wildlife Service, I think, has a really good
story to tell on ePermits. We have brought a lot of things
online from ESA-related permits, the migratory birds, the
Marine Mammal Protection Act-related permits, and it is working
very well. We still have a long way to go. As you mentioned, we
have 85 permits that are in that system already that we can
handle electronically. There is certainly more where that came
from that we need to continue working on.
But we started in 2020 with a request for a $1 million
appropriation. We got that, put it to good use, and have come
back every year since with requests for additional funding to
continue to take things online. We are continuing to work on
that, and hopefully we will get everything digital soon.
Ms. Porter. And when people get a permit, if it comes with
an associated fee, is that able to be processed online, as
well?
Mr. Strickler. My understanding is that, yes, for the
permits that we have available online, that we can do online
fee processing, too.
Ms. Porter. Yes, and that online fee process, by the way,
saves tax dollars, it is cheaper and easier to pay, and it
creates efficiencies and reduces waste.
You said that you would think the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service has a positive story to tell here. What is holding
back? What steps would other departments at Interior need to
take to do what you have done at Fish and Wildlife Service?
Mr. Strickler. I think this is something that bureaus
across the Department are looking at. Some are farther along
than others, but it is something that all of our bureaus
recognize. We can always do better, right? We can always be
more efficient. And I think they are moving in the right
direction there. I don't have details on the other bureaus, but
certainly can get back to you with the answers.
Ms. Porter. I mean, here is what my bill would do. It would
basically direct each responsible bureau and agency to do an
accounting of what all permitting it even does, and then to
assess which of those permits, once it has the list of all of
the stuff that it does, and it gets it all in one place, to
look at which of those could be most easily transferred into an
e-filing service, and to begin to prioritize those that are
easier.
Speaker Kevin McCarthy has said, ``We can streamline
permitting and still protect the environment. That is a goal
worthy of the No. 1.'' Has bringing permits online streamlined
the permitting process at Fish and Wildlife?
Mr. Strickler. Yes, absolutely.
Ms. Porter. And, again, the Speaker wants to streamline
permitting while still protecting the environment. Would you
say that, as you have brought permits online, you have still
been able to protect the environment?
Mr. Strickler. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Porter. Last question. Does bringing permitting online
undermine NEPA, the ESA, the Clean Water Act? Does it change
the standard, the substantive standard of review for the
permits?
Mr. Strickler. No, it does not.
Ms. Porter. If it is truly our No. 1 priority in Congress
to streamline permitting while still protecting the
environment, it can start with my bill. Let's bring this
legislation to a markup. Let's get it passed through the House,
and let's build upon the successful work at Fish and Wildlife
Service, and let's extend it to other agencies and other
bureaus and departments within the Department of the Interior.
I yield back.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Ms. Porter. The Chair recognizes Mr.
Carl for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Strickler, did I hear you say you were an old Coastie,
Coast Guard?
Mr. Strickler. No, I didn't serve in the Coast Guard. No,
sir.
Mr. Carl. OK, I am sorry. I heard Coast Guard a while ago.
I was going to thank you for your service. Coasties are big in
my community.
In your opening statement that I am reading here, you said
the impact of lead ammunition and fishing tackle on fish and
wildlife health is one such that threatens that we are closely
tracking. You say you are closely tracking.
My question is today is May 10, 2023. How many condors have
died from lead poisoning? Documented cases that have died from
lead poisoning.
Mr. Strickler. Thank you for the question. I will have to
get back to you with the answer to that for the record. I don't
know the----
Mr. Carl. How many eagles have documented died from lead
poison?
Mr. Strickler. I don't have a specific figure to give you.
Mr. Carl. You say you are closely tracking it here. You
don't have the numbers? You have no idea?
Mr. Strickler. I don't have the specific numbers of deaths
of those particular animals, no.
Mr. Carl. So, you came here to argue that we should not try
to get in the way of lead being taken away from the American
hunters and fishermen, but you don't know how it impacts the
group that you are saying is impacted the most. That doesn't
make much sense, Mr. Strickler, I am sorry. I realize I am a
little slow sometimes, but how can you defend something when
you don't know what you are defending?
Mr. Strickler. Well, Congressman, I beg to differ with
that. I don't think I need to know those exact numbers off the
top of my head in order to say that there are significant
impacts on the wildlife----
Mr. Carl. Well, I disagree with you, and I think most of
the people that are going to be impacted by this disagree with
you, too. I think this is just another bite of big government.
It is just another bite. All we want to do is we will start
tighten down, tighten down.
I am from a part of the country that we raise our kids
hunting and fishing, and we are very proud of that because
during that time of hunting and fishing we are talking about
life, we are talking about events that have happened in my life
that you want to pass on to your kids. It is part of our
American heritage. And to step out there and say lead is the
problem--oh, just Federal property. Can you guarantee me it is
going no further than just Federal property? Is there any way
you can 100 percent guarantee me it will go no further than
Federal property?
Mr. Strickler. Mr. Carl, thank you for the question. There
are no plans that I am aware of that the Interior Department or
any other Federal agency is looking to regulate lead anywhere.
Mr. Carl. Trust me, I am from the government. You can trust
me.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Carl. I am just telling you, that is such BS. I am
smart enough to know, if you are going to control guns--you
cannot control guns. You cannot mandate guns. But what you can
mandate is the ammo. And that is what this lead bill is after.
I am sorry. That is my personal feeling, and I will take it to
my grave. But if you can control the lead that goes in those
bullets, and you get it overpriced where the average person
can't afford it, that will be the ultimate case right there.
You price people out of it.
But let's go back to my feelings. I mean, our kids--I have
a daughter that we have elk hunted on Federal property with
lead bullets. And you are telling us we can't go back and elk
hunt? I have sons that I have elk hunted with because there is
not a lot of Federal property in Alabama. I have elk hunted in
Colorado. We can't go back out hunting on those areas because
you think lead is going to kill animals, and you can't tell me
how many it has killed?
Come on, Mr. Strickler. You can do better than that.
Mr. Strickler. Congressman, that is not what we are telling
you at all.
And I would say, I grew up fishing, and I don't hunt
because I don't have time or money to do both. I think we would
probably really like each other outside of this Committee room.
We can maybe show each other a thing or two. I am going fishing
this weekend. I am probably going to use lead. It is something
that we all have to work through together. It can be an
environmental concern, but it is something that is an important
question in the sporting community that we need to have a
serious conversation about.
Mr. Carl. Well, I am running out of time, and I think you
need to have conversations with some of these groups. I think
you are missing the true importance of what this banning the
lead means. It is our heritage that you are fooling with, and I
will fight it to the last breath I have. And I am sorry, but
that is the way I feel, and I would love to get with you
afterwards, and we will talk on it one on one.
Mr. Strickler. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Carl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Carl. The Chair recognizes Mrs.
Gonzalez-Colon for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
to all the witnesses for coming here today.
Deputy Assistant Secretary Strickler, the Coastal Barrier
Resources Act requires the Secretary of the Interior to review
the maps of the Coastal Barrier Resources System at least once
every 5 years and make, in consultation with the state, local,
and Federal officials, any minor and technical modifications to
the boundaries of the units as necessary to reflect changes
that have occurred due to natural forces.
However, a recent General Accounting Office report found
out that the Department has failed to meet this requirement.
For example, I believe that the last review and publication of
the updated maps for all Coastal Barrier Resource Systems units
in Puerto Rico occurred in 2016. So, I understand that, in
response to that report and recommendations, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Services developed and completed a strategy in January
2022 to guide its mapping review efforts through Fiscal Year
2025.
My question will be, what is the strategy and efforts the
Service is pursuing to comply with these requirements to review
and update the Coastal Barrier Resources System maps every 5
years?
Mr. Strickler. Representative Gonzalez-Colon, thank you for
the question.
You are correct that Fish and Wildlife Service last
completed a 5-year review between 2014 and 2016 for about 90
percent of the CBRS that included maps for units in Puerto
Rico, and then we rolled the remaining map review into the
Hurricane Sandy mapping project that is currently pending
before Congress.
You are correct that, in response to the 2021 GAO report,
Fish and Wildlife Service developed a strategy that included
updating every CBRS map every 5 years. We are working to update
and continue working on that strategy annually with level
funding and personnel in the office. We anticipate being able
to complete that by the end of 2026.
Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. So, I understand that the Service
completed the 5-year review of boundaries for units in eight
states last November: Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, North
Carolina, Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin, and 10 units in South
Carolina, and that additional areas are planned for the 5-year
review from 2023 to 2025.
My question will be, does the Service anticipate it will
have conducted 5-year reviews for all areas under the system by
the end of 2025?
Mr. Strickler. Thank you for the question. We are currently
in the process of conducting the review for the second batch of
states. That is Georgia, Maine, the Great Lakes States, New
York, and some units in Louisiana and Florida this year; 2024
will be another batch, which will include Puerto Rico units. We
are again hopeful that by the end of 2026 that we can get
through all of these.
Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. I would really appreciate if you can
share with the Committee a list of the plan areas that will be
reviewed each year from 2023 to 2025 later on.
Mr. Strickler. We would be happy to get you that.
Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you. I yield the balance of my
time to the Chairman.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you for the yield. And since Mr. Rouzer
has a bill in front of us, with your permission, I would like
to yield your time to Mr. Rouzer.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you very much.
Mr. Strickler, I don't know if you had a chance to read the
bill, H.R. 524. I assume that you did, but I know we all have a
lot on our plates and we can't remember everything. But
sometimes it is helpful to go back and actually look at the
verbiage in the bill.
So, I am going to start on line 8, subsection E, borrow
site: ``Section 5 shall not apply to expenditures or financial
assistance relating to the use of funds to use a borrow site
located within the system if such site has been in use as a
borrow site by a coastal storm risk management project for a
period of more than 15 years.''
Does that sound like a broad-based exclusion?
Mr. Strickler. Representative Rouzer, thank you for the
question. We are not 100 percent sure how many units this would
apply to, but I understand the intent is for it to not be
broad-based.
Mr. Rouzer. Well, that is exactly right, and we have done a
little research on it. Now, our numbers may be slightly off,
but best we can tell there would be three, perhaps maybe four,
beaches total that this would apply to.
Let me ask you this. If I change the number from 15 years
to 45 years, how do you feel about that? Will the
Administration support that?
Mr. Strickler. Thank you for the question. We would have to
go back and check to see what the implications of that change
would be.
Mr. Rouzer. Let me ask you this.
Mr. Bentz. Mr. Rouzer----
Mr. Rouzer. There are thousands and thousands and thousands
of tires----
Mr. Bentz. Mr. Rouzer, I am sorry, that time has expired,
but we are going to come back to you, of course.
With that, the Chair recognizes Mr. LaMalfa for 5 minutes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
For Assistant Secretary Strickler, your testimony stated
that H.R. 615 on the Hunters and Anglers Act would ``prohibit
the Department of the Interior and Agriculture from banning or
regulating the use of lead ammunition or fishing tackle'' this
legislation, ``unless the Secretary can demonstrate with field
data that lead ammunition or tackle is driving a decline in the
wildlife population at that unit of Federal land or water.''
So, it seems in the statement that you are framing the
requirement for policy decisions to be based on data and
science to be a bad thing. For example, in my district, where
the Klamath River flows and other rivers, we are constantly
dealing with politicized science that uses facts which haven't
been peer reviewed as the basis for water policies and, in this
case, on Klamath removal of four dams.
So, we have to be really careful on what science--what
extent it is, how many people have even done it, and an
evidence that the basis of these policies will have very real
consequences for my constituents and others, like in this case.
So, why shouldn't the government in this case have to gain
proof like are the lead levels actually affecting the wildlife
we are talking about in these units?
Why shouldn't government have to show through data that
there is an effect before it jumps in with a policy action?
Mr. Strickler. Representative LaMalfa, thank you for the
question.
I think the best way that I can answer this is to just say
that scientists are able to use their skills and the data that
they have available to draw conclusions that are scientifically
valid, even if they don't have data from a specific place.
For example, if a loon is eating lead shot that it gets off
the bottom of a lake in Maine, we can expect that behavior from
a loon in Michigan, as well. And if we have the data from
Michigan, we can apply that data to Maine, and that is
scientifically valid.
So, that is the kind of stuff that you are seeing used as
best available science in these cases. It is not that we don't
have data on the species or on the species behavior, we just
might not have it for a specific piece of ground. But if the
species behavior is the same across the landscape, then we can
use that science.
Mr. LaMalfa. So, by that measure, we would ban things that
have not reached a level of action across the board if their
potential--if they have done it somewhere else, if you had a
fuel spill somewhere that greatly affected a body of water, if
there is a potential of a fuel spill somewhere near a different
body of water, then it is like we should ban all fuel. That is
the same kind of logic.
Mr. Strickler. I would have to respectfully disagree that
that is the same logic. We wouldn't be banning the use of fuel.
We would be banning fuel spills, which you are not allowed to
spill fuel, obviously.
Mr. LaMalfa. So, by this measure, even though you might not
have nearly the level of lead shot or lead tackle in a
particular area, you would go ahead and ban it if there has
been shown no effect on the wildlife in a particular zone or
unit.
Mr. Strickler. No, I don't think that is true.
Mr. LaMalfa. That is what we are dealing with. That is what
the bill is trying to head off, is that a unilateral decision
by an agency to just ban the use, it has been going on, when
the first lead ban was going on in California, I was a State
Legislator. ``Oh, we are only going to do it in the area of the
condor,'' which was one-fourth of the state of California.
And I talked to my colleague at the time. Mr. Nava was his
name, and I said, ``When is this going to turn into a ban on
the whole state, because this is what always happens.''
``Oh, no, no, we are always going to contain it to condor
habitat.'' Soon it became a ban in the whole state. So, here we
go. We are going to have a broad ban on something that hasn't
been shown in a particular area where a ban would take effect,
to just have that power in place. That is the effect. You don't
agree with that?
Mr. Strickler. I can tell you that that is not--I am not
sure I completely follow, but no, I mean, we are certainly
not----
Mr. LaMalfa. So, you would just ban all lead. Just ban all
lead shot, ban all lead tackle.
Mr. Strickler. That is certainly not the policy of the
Department of the Interior to ban all lead shot.
Mr. LaMalfa. It is effectively doing so.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. LaMalfa. The Chair recognizes Mr.
Rouzer for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And my apologies, I
didn't realize that my colleague had lent me some time there. I
thought I had a full 5 minutes, so my apologies there.
But to finish up where I was going, Mr. Strickler,
obviously, I represent a lot of constituents that are very
frustrated about this particular issue. Wrightsville Beach is
incredibly important to our local community, our local economy.
They are way behind on their beach renourishment cycle because
of this snafu, which, in my opinion, is totally and completely
unnecessary.
And the offshore site that has the sand that is for best
use for the beach is immersed with thousands and thousands and
thousands of tires, we are told. The Army Corps of Engineers
has been out there. They know what is there. They didn't
realize it was there until they started looking at it. So,
thousands and thousands of tires interlaced with old, rusted
chain.
My question is, what is the Fish and Wildlife Service going
to do to clean all that up? I really don't like the idea of
these thousands and thousands and thousands of tires sitting
out there interlinked with the rusted chain.
Again, this was supposed to be some type of fish estuary
that the Fish and Wildlife Service was trying to create back in
the early 1970s, mid-1970s, and yet it is making it very, very
difficult if we were to use that offshore borrow site,
tremendously more expensive to sort through all that, put sand
on the beach without the worry and concern, obviously, that you
are going to have tire bits all over the place. The Fish and
Wildlife Service put it out there. I think there are a lot of
folks like me that would like the Fish and Wildlife Service to
clean it up.
Mr. Strickler. Representative Rouzer, thank you for the
question. And with great trepidation, because I never want to
disparage my friends at the State of North Carolina Division of
Marine Fisheries, but I believe that was one of their
artificial reef projects gone awry. So, we would love to see
that cleaned up, too. I think that is unfortunate. We know a
lot more about building artificial reefs than we did in the
past. And, certainly, the Fish and Wildlife Service is not
suggesting that those items get put on a beach.
Mr. Rouzer. Mr. Strickler, going back to Masonboro Inlet,
does it make any sense to you that that inlet is going to
continue to be dredged for navigational purposes, but yet you
cannot take the sand and put it back on the beach?
And let me ask you this question. Let's assume we are using
the offshore borrow site, and that sand goes on the beach, and
then that migrates down into the inlet. What is that going to
do to the ecosystem?
I mean, I think the whole purpose of CBRA is to protect the
ecosystem, not disrupt it. Is new sand going into that inlet--
isn't that going to disrupt the ecosystem?
Mr. Strickler. Congressman, thank you for the question.
I am sorry, would you mind just repeating the first part of
that for me again? I am sorry. I am not stalling, I just want
to make sure I got it right.
Mr. Rouzer. Well, the first part is it is being dredged for
navigational purposes.
Mr. Strickler. OK, so I just want to be----
Mr. Rouzer. Does it not just make common sense to take that
sand that is already being dredged and put it back at its
original source from whence it came?
Mr. Strickler. Yes, sir, and that is what I wanted clarity
on.
My understanding of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act is
that there is already an exception in it for Federal navigation
projects. So, if there is dredged sand for navigation being
dredged out of a channel, even if it is in a CBRA zone, then it
can be put on a beach that is outside of the system.
We would be happy to get back to you with more details on
that with certainty, but my understanding is that material can
be used.
Mr. Rouzer. Well, maybe your understanding is based on the
exclusion that has been in place for all these years. It is the
reason why it has been done for 50-plus years.
Mr. Strickler. No, sir. I believe those are different
circumstances.
Mr. Rouzer. Well, if you come to Wrightsville Beach and you
get in a boat and you go down there, you will see exactly what
I am talking about, and you will understand why the residents
are so upset about this action that is being taken, or not
taken, in this case.
The fact of the matter is that sand that is being dredged
is the sand that came from the beach and the sand that really
needs to go back to the beach to preserve the ecosystem. That
is the bottom line. That is why it has been done for 50-plus
years.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I see my time is expiring, so I
yield back.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Rouzer. The Chair recognizes Mr.
Graves for 5 minutes.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, first of
all, I want to thank my friend from North Carolina. I have
actually been down to his beaches, and I appreciate him
bringing this up.
I appreciate all of you all being here today, but I will
also tell you that in a previous life I have done more
restoration work than every single one of you combined times
100. And what Mr. Rouzer is trying to do is he is trying to
simply take a resource and prioritize it, trying to make sure
that if you have--just like you want to prioritize your
resources, whether it is money, fresh water, in this case it is
sand resource, making sure that you are investing in a way that
results in the best outcome.
And some of our arcane laws that require that we are not
allowed to touch certain borrow resources, it doesn't make
sense, and in many cases results in worse ecological
productivity, worse outcomes, worse resiliency. This is just
something to provide flexibility, and Mr. Rouzer has been a
leader on this, and I appreciate it.
But I want to go to Secretary McClinton.
Thank you for being here, really good to see you again.
Mr. McClinton. Yes, sir.
Mr. Graves. Mr. Secretary, in Louisiana, if I wanted to get
a fishing license, state or Federal, if I wanted to get a
turkey or deer tag, if I wanted to get an alligator tag, can I
do that online?
Mr. McClinton. Thank you, Congressman Graves. Yes, sir. All
that can be purchased online.
Mr. Graves. OK. And right now I can purchase an electronic
duck stamp, is that correct, online?
Mr. McClinton. Yes, sir.
Mr. Graves. OK, but there is a problem or an imperfection
in that my electronic approval has a shelf life, and then the
physical stamp comes in and it is supposed to be the remainder
of the season. Is that correct?
Mr. McClinton. That is 100 percent correct.
Mr. Graves. OK. So, what happens in a scenario whereby my
electronic stamp expires, and I don't have my physical stamp
yet?
Mr. McClinton. Well, then the system is broken down and not
giving the hunter what the expectation is. The 45 days should
be enough for the contractor to get that to you. I hope that is
not happening, because that is sort of the system that we have
here.
So, I guess that individual would go out to a post office
and buy a secondary stamp, but I know that is not the intent of
the law. The program is established to provide for those
individuals to buy that, and then also support the wetland
restoration and reclamation of wetlands across this country.
Mr. Graves. Which has provided over $1 billion in wetlands
restoration funds.
Back to my scenario. So, if I go on my phone and I buy an
electronic stamp, and 45 days have passed and I do not get my
physical stamp--which I have spoken to people this has happened
to. So, I have two options. I can go out and I can go hunt non-
compliant, and I can risk getting myself in trouble, or I can
go pay a second time and get a physical stamp while I wait for
my second physical stamp to come in the mail. Those are my two
options, right?
Mr. McClinton. Yes, sir. You could either order it online
again or you could go to a post office.
Mr. Graves. Yes, I guess I could order it online again.
Yes, you can do that, too. In either case, buying twice or
hunting non-compliant.
Mr. McClinton. Well, you couldn't buy it from our state,
because our system is not going to let you sell it twice. So,
yes, you would have to go to Mississippi or Arkansas to buy
their online permit.
Mr. Graves. So, gosh, so I would potentially even be
obstructed from complying.
Mr. McClinton. Yes, sir.
Mr. Graves. Yes. So, our bill, what it does, H.R. 2872,
bipartisan legislation, and it simply says that your electronic
stamp gives you valid or hunting electronic permit through the
season. And then your physical stamp, which I want to be clear,
I want to protect the physical stamp, I love it, the artwork,
the whole process I think is amazing, and we certainly want to
protect that. I assume that is important to you as well,
protecting the physical stamp?
Mr. McClinton. Yes, sir. Like we said earlier today, the
testimony, to me, it is the longest running conservation
program I am aware of. So, protecting that and keeping the
integrity for the artists that participate, and for that
program is very important. Your bill does that, and it is
very----
Mr. Graves. OK. So, our bill would simply allow for your
electronic stamp to give you the permission to hunt through the
entire season. Your physical stamp would be mailed after the
season. Therefore, you don't have people having two validations
at the same time, ensuring that you continue getting the
revenue into the trust fund that goes for wetlands restoration
purposes and ends up being a win-win because it is easier to
comply.
And, again, still preserving the stamp, still getting the
resources, sort of like world peace here, right?
Mr. McClinton. Yes, sir.
Mr. Graves. All right. Good deal.
Mr. McClinton. I didn't say in my testimony, but I wanted
to say that this legislation is to me, it is a sincere thank
you to those people that have supported us and supported these
programs over the years. So, thank you for----
Mr. Graves. Well, look, I want to thank you for working
with us on the legislation. And just like we talked about
earlier, every year I get my electronic fishing license and
anything else I want to go do, I do it online. It is easy, and
I think this one just brings--because it is a Federal stamp, we
have to change the Federal law to allow you to be able to offer
it through the season online.
So, I appreciate again you all's help. I want to thank all
the witnesses for being here. Again, I thank my friend, Mr.
Rouzer, for helping to address coastal resilience issues.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Graves. I recognize myself for 5
minutes.
Mr. Mayor, you made reference to the value of some homes
and other infrastructure that might be harmed by virtue of not
having the sand back. Can you give us a rough estimate of what
losses you are worried about incurring? Give us a number.
Mr. Mills. Thank you, Chairman. What I was referring to is
Wrightsville Beach has utilities, roads, telephone, cable,
electric, all sorts of infrastructure, water, sewer, as well as
the actual homes, commercial businesses. We are talking
hundreds of millions of dollars worth of property.
Mr. Bentz. And how soon do you have to act to avoid that
loss?
Mr. Mills. Well, as you could see, we have been on a 4-year
cycle, and we are 2 years behind now. And we are looking into
emergency funds because just beyond where you see the pile of
sand behind, property is just beyond that.
Mr. Bentz. You are looking into emergency funds because you
have to come up with the amount in excess of that which is
normal for what you have been spending.
In other words, it is going to cost you more, and you are
going to have to get that money from whom?
Mr. Mills. We are close. There are some streets, if you
will, with homes, roads, utility infrastructure that there is
literally, at high tide, no beach, no beach. You walk to the
end, what we call our beach access----
Mr. Bentz. Forgive me for interrupting, but I am going to
have to go to another topic.
Mr. Mills. OK.
Mr. Bentz. I just wanted to get it on the record that you
are looking at severe loss if something isn't done. That much
is now clear.
Mr. Mills. Correct. Thank you.
Mr. Bentz. I am going to shift over now to Mr. Adkins.
Mr. Adkins, on page 3 of H.R. 615, there has been some
discussion about the nature of the exception, and I just want
to clarify a couple of things.
First, are you familiar with this language? Am I asking you
the proper question?
Mr. Adkins. Yes.
Mr. Bentz. OK. It says the prohibition or regulations, as
applicable, must be consistent with the law of the state,
consistent with the policy of fish and wildlife department of
the state, and approved by the fish and wildlife department of
the state.
Now, the concept is obvious, isn't it, that we are trying
to be consistent across the entire state when it comes to the
type of ammunition you are going to buy, is that correct? So,
you don't have to have two different types of ammunition, one
for Federal and one for state, is that the idea?
Mr. Adkins. I think that is part of the idea, more broadly
speaking. And I won't speak for Fish and Wildlife Service, but
this is a very traditional relationship in which the state fish
and wildlife agencies have traditionally been kind of the first
mover when it comes to fish and wildlife management. So, this
part of the bill, the way I describe it to folks, is to make
sure that that long-term, century-long tradition continues----
Mr. Bentz. And this time we have to interrupt you and hop
to Paragraph 1 of the bill. And it says ``a decline in the
wildlife population.'' Is that 1 loon? Is that 5 loons? Is that
150 loons? I am trying to get a concept of decline. What does
that mean?
Mr. Adkins. It is part of the problem with the scientific
question here, and why H.R. 615 is so important. By restricting
these questions to the unit in question and requiring science
to apply to that unit in question, then we can protect that
access for hunters and anglers instead of----
Mr. Bentz. OK, let's go back to--and forgive me for rushing
through this--but it says primarily caused by the decline,
whatever it is, is primarily caused by--we lawyers look at
those kinds of words different than most others. So, does that
primary mean the major cause? Does it mean it has to be the
reason for the decline, or it can be one of many reasons?
Mr. Adkins. I think what is important here is that it is an
identifiable cause, and not a theory.
Mr. Bentz. My brief review of this suggests that lead, as a
cause, is generally ``negligible,'' whatever that means.
But what I am trying to get at here, this exception looks
like it does work. And is that your opinion, that this was
carefully crafted, not something just slapped together to try
to create an argument?
Mr. Adkins. I called it in my written testimony elegant
simplicity. This was carefully crafted to address the principal
problem with the approach taken by many of the agencies right
now. Very straightforward, very simple to simply ask that the
science we are going to utilize to kick hunters and anglers off
the landscape is actually directly tied to the unit under
consideration.
Mr. Bentz. And thank you for your patience and my
questioning.
With that, I recognize Congresswoman Luna for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Luna. Thank you, Chairman.
Beach renourishment plays an important role in coastal
communities. My colleague in North Carolina's bill highlights
the complex nature of these projects, and how important they
are for communities and critical wildlife.
One example in my district is the Sand Key Beach
Renourishment project that is up for renourishment next year in
Pinellas County, Florida. The erosion of beaches like Sand Key
can be devastating because it leaves infrastructure prone to
flood damages, which negatively impacts local economy, and it
also demolishes many habitats that endangered species and
threatened wildlife require.
As my colleague from North Carolina knows from the projects
in his district like the Wrightsville Beach Renourishment
Project, the Army Corps of Engineers plays an integral role in
a lot of these projects. Unfortunately for my district, the
Sand Key Beach Project is being stonewalled by the Army Corps
of Engineers. And just last week, the Army Corps in DC denied a
waiver from their local Army Corps office who actually performs
the project to move forward with the project using temporary
easements as they have been using for the past three decades.
In other words, the Army Corps is holding our beach
renourishment hostage in exchange for full relinquishment of
property rights from every single homeowner along the Sand Key
Beach Renourishment Project. It is clear that they are not
interested in protecting Pinellas County from storm damage, nor
protecting the habitats of threatened and endangered species.
Instead, these bureaucrats are more interested in strong-arming
private citizens over their property rights and playing
politics with projects like Sand Key that are integral for the
safety and success of people in Florida, as well as other
coastal communities.
My question is for you, Mr. Strickler. The erosion of
shorelines affects natural resources, energy, defense, public
infrastructure, and tourism. How has the Department of the
Interior worked to address the erosion along our nation's
coastlines, beaches, barrier islands, and wetlands?
Mr. Strickler. Representative Luna, thank you for the
question. And while I am not familiar with the case that you
raise in Pinellas County, I can say that the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service has a very active role in coastal resources
management.
The Coastal Barrier Resources Act is a really good example
of that by keeping natural, intact coastal barriers there to
help protect communities that are adjacent to or behind them.
We save a lot of taxpayer money, and we are able to prevent
additional development in harm's way.
We also have a coastal program that helps restore coastal
habitats like mangroves, salt marsh, dune systems, et cetera.
Certainly, there is plenty of work to be done there. NOAA also
has a role to play, but we use the resources that Congress
gives us to make progress on that front, as well.
Mrs. Luna. How long, on average, does it take the
Department of the Interior to provide all necessary permits,
for example, like Sand Key, where sand placement is critical
for restoration of endangered habitats?
Mr. Strickler. Again, I am not 100 percent familiar with
that----
Mrs. Luna. But just, like, in general for the permitting
process.
Mr. Strickler. I hate to be flippant, but it depends on
which permits, right? So, we have Migratory Bird Treaty Act
permitting, we have Endangered Species Act permitting, we have
Marine Mammal Protection Act permitting. And obviously we try
to do these as quickly as we can, including through the
electronic permitting process that we talked about.
Mrs. Luna. Can you address the one for endangered species,
because that would be one that is more specific to my region?
Mr. Strickler. Yes. I will have to get back to you
specifically on a number. It is not days, right? It usually
takes several months to get these things turned around.
But depending on the circumstance, if you are using some of
our flexible tools like habitat conservation plans, et cetera,
under the Endangered Species Act, some of those permits are
quicker. So, we try to figure out ways to do that efficiently.
Mrs. Luna. OK. Honorable Darryl Mills, Army Corps has
demonstrated a pattern of reinterpreting the law for erosion
control projects across the country. From 1998 until 2021, the
Corps interpretation of the Coastal Barrier Restoration Act
allowed Federal money to be used to move sand from an inlet to
the inlet beach until 2021. Their interpretation basically
changed. This is similar to how the Corps interpretation
changed for Sand Key Project. How has this bureaucratic policy
change obstructed these erosion control beach projects?
Mr. Mills. Thank you. How has it affected? We can't get any
sand. And you can see from the photos that Congressman Rouzer
supplied, we have severe erosion that is greatly and
immediately endangering infrastructure, property, and,
ultimately, life. It is an important barrier for, and with all
due respect to Mr. Strickler, the protection that the barrier
islands give us can't exist without some help.
Mrs. Luna. I agree.
Mr. Mills. And this reinterpretation is killing that for
Wrightsville Beach. Thank you.
Mrs. Luna. Yes, of course, thank you, and I completely
agree.
The Sand Key Project, which is facing similar issues to the
issues in Wrightsville Beach, relies on the Army Corps to
provide constant maintenance to protect residents, species,
property, tourism, and the local economy from natural
disasters. So, I just wanted to say thank you very much for you
guys being here and testifying to that.
I am over my time, Chairman. I yield my time.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, and I want to thank the witnesses for
their important and valuable testimony, and the Members for
their questions.
The members of the Committee may have some additional
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to
any of those in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the
Committee must submit questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5
p.m. Eastern time on May 15. The hearing record will be held
open for 10 business days for these responses.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]