[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]