[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 6352, H.R. 8413, H.R. 8632,
H.R. 8836, AND DISCUSSION DRAFT
OF H.R. ____ (GRAVES OF LA)
=======================================================================
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
SECOND SESSION
__________
Tuesday, September 10, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-145
__________
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
56-760 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Memo..................................................... v
Hearing held on Tuesday, September 10, 2024...................... 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:
Graves, Hon. Garret, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Louisiana......................................... 11
Grothman, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Wisconsin......................................... 12
Zinke, Hon. Ryan K., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Montana........................................... 14
Moore, Hon. Blake D., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 15
Statement of Witnesses:
Panel II:
Guertin, Steve, Deputy Director for Program Management and
Policy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the
Interior, Washington, DC................................... 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
Questions submitted for the record....................... 23
Cochran, Steve, Former Executive Director, Restore the
Mississippi River Delta, New Orleans, Louisiana............ 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Nichols, Paul, Chairman, Hitchcock County Board of
Commissioners, Trenton, Nebraska........................... 28
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
Leahy, Mike, Senior Director of Wildlife, Hunting, and
Fishing Policy, National Wildlife Federation, Washington,
DC......................................................... 33
Prepared statement of.................................... 35
Schmitz, Taylor, Director of Government Relations,
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Washington, DC....... 39
Prepared statement of.................................... 41
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Bureau of Reclamation, Statement for the Record.............. 67
NOAA, Statement for the Record............................... 69
Submissions for the Record by Representative Bentz
Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, Statement for
the Record on H.R. 6352 and H.R. 8836.................. 63
Multiple conservation organizations, Letter to the
Committee on H.R. 8836................................. 65
Submissions for the Record by Representative Huffman
BRADY--United Against Gun Violence, Statement for the
Record on H.R. 6352.................................... 4
Everytown for Gun Safety, Statement for the Record on
H.R. 6352.............................................. 6
Letter from wildlife groups opposing H.R. 8632........... 9
Submissions for the Record by Representative Zinke
Western Governors Association, Letter to the Committee on
H.R. 8836.............................................. 71
National Audubon Society, Letter to the Committee on H.R.
8836................................................... 75
Submissions for the Record by Representative Moore
Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, Letter to the Committee on
H.R. 6352.............................................. 16
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
To: Committee on Natural Resources Republican Members
From: Committee on Natural Resources staff: Annick Miller, x58331
([email protected]), Doug Levine
([email protected]. gov), Kirby Struhar
([email protected]), and Thomas Shipman
([email protected])
Date: Tuesday, September 10, 2024
Subject: Legislative Hearing on H.R. 6352, H.R. 8413, H.R. 8632, H.R.
8836, and a Discussion Draft of H.R. ____ (Rep. Graves of LA)
________________________________________________________________________
_______
The Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries will hold a
legislative hearing on: H.R. 6352 (Rep. Moore of UT), ``Tax Stamp
Revenue Transfer for Wildlife and Recreation Act''; H.R. 8413 (Rep.
Smith of NE), ``Swanson and Hugh Butler Reservoirs Land Conveyances
Act''; H.R. 8632 (Rep. Grothman), ``Biodiversity Oversight Scaled-back
and Fully Erased (BIOSAFE) Act of 2024''; H.R. 8836 (Rep. Zinke),
``Wildlife Movement Through Partnerships Act''; and a Discussion Draft
of H.R. ____ (Rep. Graves of LA), To require the Administrator of the
National Marine Fisheries Service to establish a coastal protection and
restoration grant program; on Tuesday, September 10, 2024, at 2 o'clock
p.m. EDT in 1324 Longworth House Office Building.
Member offices are requested to notify Lindsay Walton
(lindsay.walton@ mail.house.gov) by 4:30 p.m. on Monday, September 9,
2024, if their Member intends to participate in the hearing.
I. KEY MESSAGES
House Republicans are considering five bills that provide
additional funding and expertise for wildlife conservation
nationwide, provide for the transfer of a federal water
facility to local control, and promote coastal restoration.
H.R. 6352 would direct tax revenue from the transfer of
silencers to wildlife conservation and also speed up the
process of approving silencer transfer applications.
H.R. 8413 would initiate a land conveyance of two Bureau
of Reclamation reservoirs in southern Nebraska for the
purpose of turning management over to local county
management.
H.R. 8632 would require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
to withdraw their proposed Biological Integrity, Diversity,
and Environmental Health Rule thereby protecting vital
multiple use activities within the National Wildlife Refuge
System.
H.R. 8836 would build on work undertaken by the Trump
Administration to conserve migration corridors and winter
range habitat for big game species through voluntary
programs with private landowners and cooperation with state
agencies.
The Discussion Draft being considered would establish a
new grant program administered by the National Marine
Fisheries Service to advance coastal restoration
activities.
II. WITNESSES
Panel I
Members of Congress TBD
Panel II
Mr. Steve Guertin, Deputy Director for Program Management
and Policy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of
the Interior, Washington, D.C. [H.R. 6352, H.R. 8413, H.R.
8632, and H.R. 8836]
The Honorable Richard Spinrad, Under Secretary of Commerce
for Oceans and Atmosphere & NOAA Administrator, Department
of Commerce, Washington, DC [invited]
Mr. Taylor Schmitz, Director of Government Relations,
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Washington, D.C.
[H.R. 6352, H.R. 8632, and H.R. 8836]
Mr. Paul Nichols, Chairman, Hitchcock County Board of
Commissioners, Trenton, NE [H.R. 8413]
Mr. Steve Cochran, Former Executive Director, Restore the
Mississippi River Delta, New Orleans, LA [Graves Discussion
Draft]
Mr. Mike Leahy, Senior Director of Wildlife, Hunting, and
Fishing Policy, National Wildlife Federation, Washington,
DC [H.R. 8836] [Minority witness]
III. BACKGROUND
H.R. 6352 (Rep. Moore of UT), ``Tax Stamp Revenue Transfer for Wildlife
and Recreation Act''
For over 80 years, our nation's sportsmen and women have been the
primary funders of fish and wildlife conservation in the United States
through a ``user pays--public benefits'' structure known as the
``American System of Conservation Funding.'' \1\ This year, the
Department of the Interior (DOI) distributed more than $1.3 billion in
funding that was generated by sportsmen and women through excise taxes
on recreational shooting, hunting, fishing, and boating equipment.\2\
These funds are apportioned through formulas set out in the Pittman-
Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish
Restoration Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``The American System of Conservation Funding.'' Association of
Fish & Wildlife Agencies. https://www.fishwildlife.org/afwa-informs/
resources/american-system-conservation-funding
\2\ ``Final Apportionment of Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration
Funding for Fiscal Year 2024.'' U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FY24 WR
Apportionments (fws.gov) and ``Amended Final Apportionment of Dingell-
Johnson Sports Fish Restoration Funding for Fiscal 2024.'' U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. FY24 SFR Apportionments (fws.gov)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 6352 amends the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Trust
Fund by apportioning tax revenue received from the transfer of
silencers to be directed toward wildlife conservation and recreation.
In addition, the bill would require the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to expedite the processing of silencer
transfer applications.
According to the National Firearms Act of 1934 (Public Law 73-474),
all applicants wishing to transfer a silencer are required to undergo a
background check and pay a $200 tax stamp.
Currently, the revenue accrued by the tax stamp goes to the general
treasury, without a stated purpose. H.R. 6352 would change this by
directing 85 percent of it to the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Trust Fund. Of the revenue dedicated to the Pittman-
Robertson Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund by this bill, 15 percent
would be utilized to develop, maintain, and operate recreational
shooting ranges. The rest of the funding would go toward wildlife
conservation, hunter education, and other activities set out in the
underlying Pittman-Roberston statute.
The remaining 15 percent of tax stamp revenue from the transfer of
silencers would be allocated to the ATF to expedite the processing of
silencer transfer applications. H.R. 6352 would also place a 90-day
requirement on the ATF to process silencer applications. If an
application is not processed within 90 days, that application will be
deemed approved.
H.R. 6352 has five Republican cosponsors and one Democrat
cosponsor.
H.R. 8413 (Rep. Smith of NE), ``Swanson and Hugh Butler Reservoirs Land
Conveyances Act''
H.R. 8413 initiates the transfer of federal lands at the Swanson
Reservoir and the Hugh Butler Reservoir in Nebraska to Frontier County
and Hitchcock County in southern Nebraska. These reservoirs were
created by the construction of dams for flood control under the Pick-
Sloan Missouri Basin Program which was authorized by the Flood Control
Act in 1944.\3\ The Hugh Butler Reservoir was created by the
construction of the Red Willow Dam and holds 86,630 acre-feet (AF) of
water.\4\ The Swanson Reservoir was created by the construction of the
Trenton Dam between 1949 and 1953 and is capable of storing 216,291
AF.5,6 Among other benefits, these reservoirs provide access
to recreational outdoor activities with the two parks containing 5,960
acres available for public access hunting and recreational fishing
access for many fish species including walleye, crappie, channel
catfish, and several others.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program (General Overview). USBR. 1/
20/2022. https://web.archive.org/web/20090118035708/http://
www.usbr.gov/dataweb/html/psmbp.html
\4\ Red Willow Dam. USBR. 9/28/2016. https://web.archive.org/web/
20120927153103/http://www.usbr.gov/projects/
Facility.jsp?fac_Name=Red+Willow+Dam&groupName=Overview
\5\ Frenchman-Cambridge Division. USBR. 9/1/2022. https://
web.archive.org/web/201209251243 56/http://www.usbr.gov/projects/
Project.jsp?proj_Name=Frenchman-Cambridge%20Division
\6\ Swanson Reservoir (Trenton Dam). DOI. No date. https://
www.recreation.gov/camping/gateways/83
\7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The legislation was introduced at the request of both Hitchcock and
Frontier Counties with the hopes of placing certain land around these
two reservoirs under local control after disagreements arose between
local stakeholders and the Bureau of Reclamation about the management
of the concession areas surrounding the reservoirs.\8\ The disagreement
stemmed from a Bureau of Reclamation decision to require the removal of
mobile homes parks surrounding the reservoirs by November 1, 2024 as a
precondition to resign concessionaire contracts.\9\ Local
concessionaires have stated publicly that the removal of the trailer
parks would cause a drastic loss in revenues and put their businesses
at risk.\10\ The cost of this transfer to the counties has not been
determined, however the bill mandates that an appraisal be conducted,
and the counties will be responsible for providing fair market value
compensation for the respective conveyances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Fischer, Ricketts, Smith Introduce Legislation to Transfer
Ownership of Swanson & Red Willow Reservoirs. Senator Deb Fischer. 5/
15/2024. https://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2024/5/
fischer-ricketts-smith-introduce-legislation-to-transfer-ownership-of-
swanson-red-willow-reservoirs
\9\ ``Lake communities fighting federal agency's plan to remove
trailer cabins at Southwest Nebraska lakes.'' Jason Frederick.
Hitchcock County News. 6/6/23. Local News: Lake communities fighting
federal agency's plan to remove trailer cabins at Southwest Nebraska
lakes (6/6/23)/McCook Gazette
\10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 8413 has three Republican cosponsors and one Democrat
cosponsor. Companion legislation has been introduced in the Senate by
Senators Deb Fischer (R-NE) and Pete Ricketts (R-NE).
H.R. 8632 (Rep. Grothman), ``Biodiversity Oversight Scaled-back and
Fully Erased (BIOSAFE) Act of 2024''
H.R. 8632 would require the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary),
acting through the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), to withdraw the proposed rule titled ``National Wildlife
Refuge System; Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental
Health (BIDEH).'' This rule would make sweeping changes to the way the
National Wildlife Refuge System (System) operates and is managed. The
proposed rule has generated substantial interest since it was proposed
by the USFWS on February 2, 2024. The USFWS is currently analyzing over
146,000 comments that have been submitted on the proposal.
The proposed rule, if finalized, would make a series of changes to
the ability that refuge managers have to utilize several key management
tools on System lands. Impacted management tools could include
agricultural practices, native predator control, utilizing genetically
engineered crops (GECs), and utilizing pesticides. The rule creates a
``default position'' for the System by expressly stating that certain
practices are prohibited unless refuge managers conduct a full
evaluation of the potential environmental effects of the management
activity in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA).\11\ In addition, refuge managers would also be required to
complete a comprehensive analysis to justify that utilizing these
management practices is necessary to meet statutory responsibilities,
fulfill refuge purposes, and ensure BIDEH. Additional red tape could
include additional layers of planning through the refuge's
comprehensive conservation plan or undergoing a scientific peer review.
On top of the new requirements, according to the rule, refuge managers
must also ``fulfill other policy and legal requirements prior to
implementing a management activity or use when applicable.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 89 FR 7345. at 7348
\12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central to the issue with the proposed rule is that the System's
new ``default position'' on key management practices is ``they are
prohibited.'' \13\ This does not accomplish the USFWS' intended goal of
the rulemaking, which is to promote ``management flexibility'' and
``empower refuge managers.'' \14\ Instead, the proposed rule ties the
hands of refuge managers from making important management decisions by
requiring them to work through regulatory red tape before conducting
important management actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Id. at 7352
\14\ Id. at 7348
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries held an oversight
hearing on the proposed BIDEH rule on April 10th, 2024, more
information on that hearing, including testimony, can be seen here, and
the hearing memo can be seen here. On June 28, 2024, Chairman Westerman
and 20 other bi-partisan House members sent a letter to the USFWS
calling on them to withdraw the proposed BIDEH rule.
H.R. 8632 has three Republican cosponsors.
H.R. 8836 (Rep. Zinke), ``Wildlife Movement Through Partnerships Act''
H.R. 8836 would codify existing agency activities and make changes
to existing conservation programs to enhance funding toward the
conservation of wildlife movement areas, sometimes referred to as
migration corridors, for big game species and other wildlife. This
legislation builds upon Secretarial Order (S.O.) 3362, entitled
``Improving Habitat Quality in Western Big-Game Winter Range and
Migration Corridors,'' which was signed by Rep. Zinke in 2018 when he
was Secretary of the Interior.\15\ The bill also builds upon the
Wildlife Crossings Pilot Program that was authorized by the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Migratory Big Game
Initiative of the Department of Agriculture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Secretarial Order 3362. U.S. Department of the Interior. 2/9/
2018. so_3362_migration.pdf (doi.gov)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.O. 3362 directed agencies within DOI to work closely with western
states to conserve big-game winter range and migration corridor habitat
under the jurisdiction of the Department, while protecting state
authorities and private property rights.\16\ The S.O. specifically
called out species such as Rocky Mountain Elk, Mule Deer, and Pronghorn
Antelope as species that would directly benefit from this effort.\17\
These species migration corridors have been put at risk by residential
development and other development that includes fencing, road
construction, or the construction of other barriers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Id.
\17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The S.O. required DOI to appoint a ``Coordinator'' within the
Department whose sole responsibility would be to work directly with
federal agencies, state agencies, and non-governmental organizations to
conserve winter range and migration corridor habitat for big game
species.\18\ It also required DOI to work with state agencies to
develop action plans that include habitat management goals for big game
winter range and migration corridor habitat, measurable conservation
outcomes, and budgetary resources needed to carry out respective
actions.\19\ The S.O. also directed the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
to work with state agencies to map wildlife corridors for elk, deer,
and pronghorn species.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Id.
\19\ Id.
\20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 8836 would carry-on this work by requiring the Secretary to
develop a nonregulatory ``Wildlife Movement and Movement Area Grant
Program.'' This program would fund projects that improve or conserve
habitat quality in movement areas, arrange voluntary collaboration with
landowners, and coordinate efforts among State and Tribal governments.
This grant program would be administered by the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), grants would have a 90 percent federal cost
share, and 50 percent of the appropriated funding must be directed
toward big game species. While the bill does not authorize a specific
dollar figure for this program, it does authorize the program through
Fiscal Year (FY) 2030.
The bill would also require the Secretary to develop a ``State and
Tribal Migration Research Program'' that would provide funding to State
fish and wildlife agencies and Indian Tribes to collect and analyze
data on identification, characteristics, or management of movement
areas. This program would be administered by the USFWS and the bill
does not authorize a specific dollar figure for this program, but it
would be authorized through FY 2030.
The bill would also make changes to existing conservation programs.
The bill would amend the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program
(Partners Program) by encouraging it to provide technical assistance to
other federal agencies to conserve migration corridors or season
habitat. The bill would also reauthorize the Partners Program through
2030, which the House has taken action to do previously when it passed
the ``WILD Act'' on February 5, 2024, but that bill still awaits
consideration in the Senate.\21\ The bill also encourages USGS to
continue their corridor mapping efforts and it also contains a series
of savings clauses that protect livestock and agricultural production,
state management of species within their borders, private property
rights, and public access for sportsman activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ ``H.R. 5009--WILD Act.'' Actions--H.R. 5009--118th Congress
(2023-2024): WILD Act/Congress.gov/Library of Congress
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 8836 is co-lead by Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) and has a Senate
companion that has been introduced by Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA).
Discussion Draft of H.R. ____ (Rep. Graves of LA), To require the
Administrator of the National Marine Fisheries Service to
establish a coastal protection and restoration grant program.
At a field hearing that the Committee held in Thibodaux, Louisiana
last month, one of the main themes that members heard was the
importance of Louisiana's coast--for its abundant natural resources,
its contributions to both the domestic and international economy, and
its ecological significance. This region has experienced incredible
adversity through the loss of its coastal wetlands; recent projections
have found that Louisiana has lost coastal wetlands the size of the
state of Delaware since the 1930s,\22\ due to various factors,
including river levees, navigation channels, hurricanes, and
subsidence.\23\ More information from the field hearing, including
testimony, can be found here, and the hearing memo can be found here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ United States Geological Survey. Louisiana's changing coastal
wetlands: Lack of Major Hurricanes Since 2008 is Likely the Main
Reason. July 12, 2017. https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/
usgs-louisianas-rate-coastal-wetland-losscontinues-slow
\23\ TEDxLSU. America's coast in danger/Garret Graves. https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v= 2nxvIvbdgSA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The discussion draft introduced by Congressman Garret Graves (R-LA)
would address this challenge by creating a ten-year competitive grant
program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
(NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to advance coastal
restoration activities in the lower Mississippi watershed through
financial support and technical assistance. Through a cooperative
agreement, the program would be managed and administered by the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF). Specific restoration
activities that would be supported by this grant program include the
construction of levees, the restoration of fish habitat, including
artificial reefs, protecting barrier islands, and advancing nature-
based solutions, among others.
Entities eligible to receive grants would be state, local, and
Tribal governments, or a center of excellence as defined in Section
1605 of the Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist
Opportunities, and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States Act of
2012 (33 U.S.C. 1321 note). To carry out this grant program, the
discussion draft directs NMFS to consult with the USFWS, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) within the Department of Agriculture, and
Louisiana's Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority. It would also
direct the Administrator of NMFS to prioritize activities that further
state or federal coastal protection and restoration plans.
One specific barrier to coastal restoration is the environmental
review process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Often the way that the environmental baseline is calculated when
conducting environmental reviews under NEPA fails to account for the
intent of a coastal restoration project, leaving important projects
caught up in a burdensome review process. To avoid this, the discussion
draft would direct the Administrator of NMFS, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Chief of the Army Corps
of Engineers to determine if coastal protection and restoration
projects ``that are intended to provide an ecological benefit are a
category of actions that normally do not significantly affect the
quality of the human environment.'' \24\ If such a determination is
made, they would be directed to establish a categorical exclusion for
these projects. As a way of further guarding against unnecessary delay
under NEPA, the discussion draft grant specifies that grants awarded
under this program are not a major federal action under NEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Discussion Draft. To require the Administrator of the National
Marine Fisheries Service to establish a coastal protection and
restoration grant program. Congressman Garret Graves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To carry out this program, the discussion draft authorizes $500
million per fiscal year. The legislation includes a ten-year sunset for
these authorities. Additionally, the federal cost share cannot exceed
80 percent. Non-federal funds to meet the cost of a project may include
revenue sharing funds, such as those generated through the Gulf Coast
Restoration Trust Fund.
IV. MAJOR PROVISIONS & ANALYSIS
H.R. 6352 (Rep. Moore of UT), ``Tax Stamp Revenue Transfer for Wildlife
and Recreation Act''
Redirects tax stamp revenue from the transfer of silencers
from the General Treasury to the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Conservation Trust Fund and to the ATF.
Requires the ATF to process applications to transfer a
silencer within 90 days of the application being submitted.
H.R. 8413 (Rep. Smith of NE), ``Swanson and Hugh Butler Reservoirs Land
Conveyances Act''
Authorizes the transfer of federal lands around the
Swanson and Hugh Butler Reservoirs in Nebraska from the
Bureau of Reclamation to Hitchcock and Frontier Counties.
H.R. 8632 (Rep. Grothman), ``Biodiversity Oversight Scaled-back and
Fully Erased (BIOSAFE) Act of 2024''
Requires the USFWS to withdraw their proposed rule titled
``National Wildlife Refuge System; Biological Integrity,
Diversity, and Environmental Health (BIDEH).''
H.R. 8836 (Rep. Zinke), ``Wildlife Movement Through Partnerships Act''
Creates a ``Wildlife Movement and Movement Area Grant
Program'' within the DOI, to be administered by NFWF, to
conserve or improve habitat quality in movement areas. The
bill does not specify an authorized funding level for the
program but would authorize it through FY 2030. Grants
given out by the program would have a 90 percent federal
cost share and 50 percent of the total grant funding must
be allocated toward projects benefiting big game species.
Creates a ``State and Tribal Migration Research Program''
to provide funding to State and Tribes to collect and
analyze data on the identification, characteristics, or
management of movement areas. This grant program would be
administered by the USFWS. The bill does not specify an
authorized funding level for the program, but it would be
authorized through FY 2030. Grants given out by the program
would have a 90 percent federal cost share.
Amends the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program to add
an emphasis on voluntary conservation of migration
corridors and seasonal habitat. The bill would also
reauthorize the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program
through FY 2030.
Requires USGS to continue their Corridor Mapping Team and
existing corridor mapping efforts. The bill would authorize
an unspecified amount of funding for these activities
through FY 2030.
Creates a new position, within the office of the
Secretary, fully dedicated to coordinating efforts to carry
out this act and authorize funding for this position
through FY 2030.
Contains savings clause language to protect existing land
management practices, private property rights, public
access, and military readiness.
Discussion Draft of H.R. ____ (Rep. Graves of LA), To require the
Administrator of the National Marine Fisheries Service to
establish a coastal protection and restoration grant program.
Creates a grant program at NMFS--in consultation with the
EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, USFWS, NRCS, and the
Louisiana's Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority--
to advance coastal protection and restoration activities in
the lower Mississippi watershed. Activities would include
the construction of non-Federal levees, building and
protecting barrier islands, planting vegetation, and other
nature-based solutions.
Through a cooperative agreement, the program would be
managed and administered by the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation (NFWF).
Directs the Administrator of NMFS, the Administrator of
EPA, and the Chief of the Army Corps of Engineers to
determine if coastal restoration projects will affect
environmental quality; if a determination is made that they
do not normally affect environmental quality, they are
directed to develop a categorical exclusion for these
projects. Also states that the award of a grant under this
bill is not a major federal action under NEPA.
Authorizes $500 million per fiscal year for the 10 years
that the program is in place.
V. EFFECT ON CURRENT LAW
H.R. 6352
https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bill-to-law--
118hr6352ih.pdf
H.R. 8836
https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/ramseyer_-
_h.r._8836.pdf
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 6352, TO TRANSFER A PORTION OF THE
FIREARMS TRANSFER TAX IMPOSED UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
OF 1986 TO THE FEDERAL AID TO WILDLIFE RESTORATION FUND AND THE
CONSERVATION OF AMERICA'S WILDLIFE TRUST FUND, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES, ``TAX STAMP REVENUE TRANSFER FOR WILDLIFE AND
RECREATION ACT''; H.R. 8413, TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF
CERTAIN FEDERAL LAND AT SWANSON RESERVOIR AND HUGH BUTLER
RESERVOIR IN THE STATE OF NEBRASKA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,
``SWANSON AND HUGH BUTLER RESERVOIRS LAND CONVEYANCES ACT'';
H.R. 8632, TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO WITHDRAW
A PROPOSED RULE RELATING TO THE BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY,
DIVERSITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE
REFUGE SYSTEM, ``BIODIVERSITY OVERSIGHT SCALED-BACK AND FULLY
ERASED ACT OF 2024'', OR ``BIOSAFE ACT OF 2024''; H.R. 8836, TO
ESTABLISH THE WILDLIFE MOVEMENT AND MOVEMENT AREA GRANT PROGRAM
AND THE STATE AND TRIBAL MIGRATION RESEARCH PROGRAM, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES, ``WILDLIFE MOVEMENT THROUGH PARTNERSHIPS ACT'';
AND DISCUSSION DRAFT OF H.R. ____, (GRAVES) TO REQUIRE THE
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE TO
ESTABLISH A COASTAL PROTECTION AND RESTORATION GRANT PROGRAM
----------
Tuesday, September 10, 2024
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:17 p.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Cliff Bentz
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bentz, Graves, LaMalfa, Carl,
Hageman, Westerman; Huffman, and Hoyle.
Also present: Representatives Grothman, Moore, Smith,
Zinke; and Beyer.
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 to today's hearing.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Member.
Therefore, I 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 Congressman from
Nebraska, Mr. Smith; the Congressman from Wisconsin, Mr.
Grothman; the Congressman from Utah, Mr. Moore; and the
Congressman from Montana, Mr. Zinke be allowed to participate
in today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
We are here today to consider five legislative measures:
H.R. 6352, the Tax Stamped Revenue Transfer for Wildlife and
Recreation Act, sponsored by Representative Moore of Utah; H.R.
8413, the Swanson and Hugh Butler Reservoirs Land Conveyances
Act, sponsored by Representative Smith of Nebraska; H.R. 8632,
the BIOSAFE Act of 2024, sponsored by Representative Grothman
of Wisconsin; H.R. 8836, the Wildlife Movement Through
Partnerships Act, sponsored by Representative Zinke of Montana;
and a discussion draft to require the administrator of the
National Marine Fisheries Service to establish a Coastal
Protection and Restoration Grant program, 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. I want to thank the Members that are joining us
today and their interest in the bills we are considering.
I also want to thank the witnesses that traveled to
Washington to be with us. We look forward to hearing from you.
The Foundation of American wildlife conservation is a
``user pays'' model, where hunters and anglers fund
conservation work through taxes and fees paid when they
purchase hunting and fishing equipment. This model raises over
$1 billion each year for wildlife conservation. Congressman
Blake Moore's Tax Stamp Revenue for Wildlife Recreation Act
would build upon this North American model by investing
revenues from the current stamp tax paid on fire suppressors,
firearms suppressors, into the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Conservation Trust Fund. This bill would fix a long-standing
anomaly that treats this tax stamp revenue differently than
revenue collected from other taxes on firearm equipment.
Currently, revenues from firearm suppressors goes into the
general treasury without a stated purpose. Directing these
revenues toward wildlife conservation would provide nearly $200
million in additional Federal funding to save some of our
nation's most imperiled species.
Congressman Zinke's Wildlife Movement Through Partnerships
Act builds upon his work as Secretary of the Interior by
creating voluntary and incentive-based programs to conserve
movement areas for big game and other wildlife species. The
bill we are considering today would build upon the success
these programs have had in conserving those species and expand
it to others. It is important to emphasize that this bill draws
no lines on maps and doesn't expand the Federal estate.
Instead, it prioritizes incentive-based and voluntary efforts
that have proven effective in conserving vital habitat for
wildlife.
Congressman Grothman's BIOSAFE Act addresses the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife's BIDEH rule, regulations that are said to ensure
the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health
of our nation's refuge system. This Subcommittee held an
oversight hearing on this proposed rule back in April, and
heard from witnesses representing state game and fish agencies,
the agricultural community, and conservation organizations. The
witnesses shared valuable perspectives on why this rule is bad
for those who work in and enjoy our National Wildlife Refuge
System, but especially bad for the wildlife relying on the
systems and our refuges for vital habitat. Congressman
Grothman's bill would require the Service to withdraw this
harmful proposed rule.
We also will be considering a discussion draft from
Congressman Graves that addresses coastal restoration in the
lower Mississippi River watershed. The discussion draft would
create a 10-year grant program at NOAA Fisheries to provide
technical assistance and financial support for coastal
restoration activities in the region. The funding would help
protect barrier islands, build levees, restore fish habitat,
and other nature-based solutions. Last month, I joined Chairman
Westerman and Congressman Graves for a field tour in South
Louisiana, where we saw the damage that had been done to the
Delta by separating the Mississippi River from the Delta, and
compounded by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The importance of
coastal restoration and the challenges these communities face
would be addressed by this bill.
Lastly, Congressman Adrian Smith's Swanson and Hugh Butler
Reservoirs Land Conveyance Act would convey Federal lands to
Frontier County and Hitchcock County, Nebraska. The conveyance
of these lands would resolve local concerns regarding
management of recreational lands surrounding two Bureau of
Reclamation reservoirs.
I want to once again thank the Members and the witnesses
for their time and interest today. I look forward to a robust
discussion.
I now recognize Ranking Member Huffman for his opening
statement.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin, I
would like to ask unanimous consent that Representative Don
Beyer of Virginia have permission to join us at the dais and
participate in the hearing today.
Mr. Bentz. Without objection.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Huffman. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, everyone.
Today, we are discussing five Republican-led bills. I wish
that the Majority had included some of the Democrat-led bills.
We have bipartisan candidates out there, Representative
Scholten's Junior Duck Stamp Reauthorization bill, and these
candidates actually comply with Republicans' suspension floor
protocols, unlike some of the bills we are considering today.
But despite the one-sided nature of the hearing, which is
disappointing, a few bills do have commendable provisions
supporting wildlife conservation and habitat. Two good
bipartisan bills on the agenda are H.R. 8413, which transfers
ownership of reservoir lands from the Bureau of Reclamation to
Hitchcock and Frontier Counties, and Mr. Zinke's H.R. 8836,
establishing a wildlife movement and migration corridor
program. These are good bills. I support them.
And while it is encouraging that we can still find some
common ground on some of our goals relating to wildlife
conservation, restoration, and coastal resilience, I do still
have some concerns about certain provisions in the remaining
bills.
Starting with Mr. Moore's H.R. 6352, this would direct tax
revenues from gun silencers to the Pittman-Robertson Act's
Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund, which does support wildlife
conservation across the states and territories. Theoretically,
this is similar to existing taxes on guns, pistols, and
ammunition. It could potentially gain bipartisan support. And I
do know that the author means well here. But as written, this
bill does very little for wildlife conservation, the main point
of the Pittman-Robertson Act, but it does quite a lot for the
gun lobby.
In an obvious effort to promote sales of guns and
silencers, it has a terrible provision that would amend the
National Firearms Act to automatically approve any application
for the sale or manufacture of silencers after 90 days,
automatically. We shouldn't be passing bills to make it easier
for criminals to acquire these devices and put more money in
the pockets of the gun industry. This does nothing for wildlife
conservation, does nothing for law abiding gun owners, and
certainly does nothing for public safety. Silencers are
strictly regulated because they are dangerous when they get
into the wrong hands. They make it more difficult for law
enforcement to track shooters, for bystanders to recognize
gunfire and to seek safety.
I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chair, to enter into the
record a letter signed by gun safety advocates and a memorandum
from Everytown for Gun Safety outlining their serious concerns
with this provision.
Mr. Bentz. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Statement for the Record
BRADY--United Against Gun Violence
Fast Facts & Talking Points
H.R. 6352: Tax Stamp Revenue Transfer for Wildlife and Recreation Act
H.R. 6352 transfers a portion of the excise tax for transferring a
firearms suppressor and allocates tax revenues to support wildlife
conservation and recreational activities. Additionally, this
legislation creates a presumption that an application to make or
transfer a silencer is considered approved after 90 calendar days have
elapsed, regardless of whether or not the application has been
processed or the applicant's background check has been completed.
Background: The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA)
The NFA was the first federal firearm regulation ever enacted. This
law, passed by Congress 90 years ago with the formal support of the
National Rifle Association, responded to sustained and overwhelming gun
violence perpetrated by organized criminal enterprises, as well as
roving gangsters and bank robbers during the Prohibition Era. Congress
heavily regulated several firearms and accessories that it viewed as 1)
``particularly dangerous'' and 2) lacking a legitimate use, including
silencers, machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, and short-barreled rifles
(all of which are defined as ``firearms'' under the NFA).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Firearms Act: Hearings on H.R. 9066 Before the H.
Comm. on Ways and Means, 73d Cong. 4 (1934) (``NFA House Hearings'')
(Statement of Homer S. Cummings, Att'y Gen. of the United States).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The regulatory framework of the NFA is enforced by the imposition
of a tax on the making and transfer of weapons defined by the Act, as
well as a special (occupational) tax on persons and entities engaged in
the business of importing, manufacturing, and dealing in NFA weapons.
NFA firearms are subject to registration, a $200 transfer tax (which
has not been increased since 1934), and an extensive background check
which requires the submission of a photograph and fingerprints.
Individuals who violate the NFA are liable for up to 10 years in prison
and/or up to $250,000 in fines.
Today, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
(ATF) is responsible for processing all NFA applications. In December
2021, ATF launched their ``eForm'' system, which processes all
electronically submitted applications, drastically reducing processing
times for applications to manufacture or transfer an NFA-covered
firearm.
Silencers, also known as suppressors or mufflers, are designed to
muffle, distort, and diminish the sound of gunfire.\2\ They make it
more difficult for victims, bystanders, and law enforcement to
recognize and react to gunfire and to identify shooters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 18 U.S.C. Sec. 921(a)(24).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Talking Points
This legislation is solving a problem which largely no longer
exists:
Prior to the implementation of the eForm for NFA
application submissions, approval times for silencers could
take 6-8 months, as such applications would need to be
processed by hand.
After implementation of eForm, processing times are
dramatically reduced.
While the legislation approves, by default, applications
that take longer than 90 days, applications for NFA Form 1
or Form 4, the applications in question for making or
transferring silencers, currently take on average 55 days
and 69 days to process, respectively.
In fact, two large silencer retailers, Silencer Central
and the Silencer Shop, have claimed that their customers
have been approved in as little as three to seven days,
respectively.
Despite being woefully underfunded, ATF has vastly
increased its efficiency, processing over 1,000,000 NFA
applications in 2023, nearly double the just over 512,000
NFA applications processed in 2020, the year before the
implementation of eForm.
The current NFA process is very effective at preventing criminal
misuse and should not be altered:
By all measures, the NFA has been an unmitigated success,
as NFA-registered weapons are almost never recovered in
crime.
+ While firearms that are covered by the NFA are recovered
at crime scenes, nearly all are unregistered and illegally
produced.
In fact, among NFA-registered weapon owners, there were
only 12 felony convictions between 2006 and 2014, and none
of those crimes involved their NFA-registered firearm.
Only rarely have major crimes been perpetrated with an
NFA-registered firearm:
+ In May 2019, a shooter used a .45 caliber pistol
equipped with a legally registered silencer to kill 12 and
injure 4 others at the Virginia Beach Municipal Center in
Virginia Beach, VA. Despite the shooter having fired dozens of
rounds both inside and outside the building, most individuals
who were present could not identify that a shooting was taking
place, and did not flee the building.
+ A former Los Angeles police officer used lawfully
registered silencers during a two-day killing spree in 2013,
leading to the death of 4 victims, including two law
enforcement officers.
This bill places the onus of processing applications entirely on
ATF, however, ATF is not solely responsible for completing
applications:
ATF relies on the National Instant Criminal Background
Check System (NICS) to complete background checks on
applicants.
When ATF processes applications it initiates a background
check at NICS, which will return one of three possible
replies: ``proceed'' (the purchaser is not prohibited),
``denied'' (the purchaser is prohibited), or ``delayed''
(if the purchaser's background check requires further
investigation due to incomplete records).
NICS relies on records uploaded to its databases by
federal, state, and local governments, and because that
information may not be completely up to date, completing
investigations into backgrounds can be delayed
significantly.
NICS cannot compel state and local agencies to comply with
record requests, and are reliant on information voluntarily
provided.
This bill creates a loophole that would increase the chances of
criminal misuse of silencers:
This legislation creates a default approval after 90 days
for applications to make or transfer silencers, greatly
increasing the chances that a prohibited individual would
be able to access them.
Background checks for non-NFA firearms already are subject
to a ``default proceed'' (commonly known as the Charleston
Loophole), which has led to over 58,000 prohibited
individuals accessing firearms since 2008.
+ Creating a default approval for silencer applications
would almost certainly lead to prohibited individuals accessing
them.
+ NFA, determined to be particularly dangerous by
Congress, should be held to a higher standard for ensuring
lawful transfers and manufacture.
Processing times for paper applications are much longer
for Form 1 and Form 4, 100 days and 232 days, respectively.
As these applications are processed by hand, this
legislation would incentivize prohibited individuals to
rely on the 90 day default approval to access silencers
before their prohibited status could be uncovered.
+ Without a corresponding large increase in ATF staff and
resources to process applications, most paper applications
would enter the default approval.
Even a single individual with a silencer can inflict
terrible damage in a short period of time.
The Natural Resources Committee does not have jurisdiction over the
National Firearms Act or ATF.
The Committees of jurisdiction are Ways and Means and
Judiciary, respectively.
______
Statement for the Record
EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY
Oppose H.R. 6352
Tax Stamp Revenue Transfer for Wildlife and Recreation Act
*****
Executive Summary: Everytown for Gun Safety opposes H.R. 6352, the
Tax Stamp Revenue Transfer for Wildlife and Recreation Act. This
legislation, among other things, would:
Appropriate 15% of the net revenues of the transfer tax on
silencers to be made available to ATF's National Firearms
Act Division for the purpose of expediting the approval
process for making or transferring silencers; and,
Require the default approval of applications for making or
transfer silencers after 90 days.
In addition, H.R. 6352 would require 85% of the net revenues of the
transfer tax on silencers to be appropriated to the Fish and Wildlife
Service to carry out programs under the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Act, including those that provide funding for hunter and
recreational shooter recruitment as well as a new program to
``construct, maintain, expand, or operate public target ranges.''
Everytown opposes H.R. 6352 because it would make it easier for
individuals to acquire silencers through both expedited application
processing and default approval. Default approval would also create a
substantial risk that someone who is prohibited from purchasing or
possessing a silencer is able to do so anyway. While Everytown does not
oppose funding for federal hunter education and safety programs,
Everytown encourages Congress to instead allocate funds derived from
federal taxes on firearms and ammunition to federal gun violence
prevention programs.
Background on Silencers: Silencers are devices that help dampen a
firearm's sound signature and eliminate its muzzle flash by allowing
the hot gasses that follow a bullet down the barrel to expand and cool
before hitting the air outside of the gun. Silencers work like car
mufflers, but for firearms. As a result, it is more difficult to
determine where a shot originated when a silencer has been used for
both the public--to run, hide, or protect others--and for law
enforcement in investigating gun crimes.
Silencers have also been used in high-profile mass shootings,
including in Monterey Park, California, in January 2023, and Virginia
Beach, in May 2019. In Monterey Park, the shooter used an assault
weapon equipped with a silencer to kill 11 and wound nine others at a
Lunar New Year celebration. In Virginia Beach, the shooter also used
two pistols, including one equipped with a silencer, to kill 12 and
wound four others at a government office building. One Virginia Beach
survivor said that the shooter's suppressed firearm sounded like ``a
nail gun,'' and explained that ``[i]f it was a regular gunshot, we
would've definitely known a lot sooner, even if we would've had 30 or
60 seconds more. I think we could've all secured ourselves . . . all of
us could've barricaded ourselves in.''
The firearms industry and the gun lobby claim that silencers are
just safety accessories that reduce noise levels to prevent hearing
loss for hunters, but hearing protection--including earplugs and/or
earmuffs--is still recommended when using silencer-equipped firearms to
prevent hearing loss.
Silencer Regulation: Congress has regulated silencers since the
National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. The NFA imposed strict
registration requirements on silencers: Individuals who seek to make or
purchase them must submit an application to ATF with their
fingerprints, a passport-style photograph, and a $200 tax stamp, and
undergo an enhanced background check. Congress intended ``to curtail,
if not prohibit, transactions in NFA firearms,'' including silencers,
machineguns, and short-barreled rifles because these weapons ``pose[d]
a significant crime problem'' due to their ``frequent use.'' The tax
itself ``was considered quite severe and adequate to carry out
Congress' purpose to discourage or eliminate transactions in these
firearms,'' though it has not been raised or adjusted for inflation
since 1934.
Current Silencer Trends: As of January 2024, there were a total of
3.5 million registered silencers in the United States. More than
830,000 of those silencers were purchased and registered in the 32
months between May 2021 and January 2024. Explanations for this
dramatic increase include:
In December 2021, ATF began using a new online ``eForms''
system to speed up the NFA application approval process.
eForms allows individuals and members of the firearms
industry to file certain forms electronically rather than
via paper applications.
Silencer retailers have worked to streamline the silencer-
buying process. For instance, retailers prepare NFA
applications for customers, send customers fingerprinting
kits, and even ship silencers directly to their doors,
cutting out brick-and-mortar stores.
More companies are making silencers today than ever
before, including gun makers like Sig Sauer and Ruger.
Smith & Wesson purchased a large silencer manufacturer in
2017, and other gun makers like CZ-USA, Daniel Defense, FN,
Primary Weapons Systems, and Savage Arms have all added
firearms to their own catalogs in addition to the many
firearms that come with threaded barrels to accept
silencers.
As of August 1, 2024, the average processing time for ATF Form 4
from an individual is 69 days if filed as an eForm and 232 days if
filed as a paper application.
Federal Funding: Under current law, revenues generated through
excise taxes on firearms and ammunition provide funding for Pittman-
Robertson wildlife restoration programs and hunter safety and education
programs, but Congress should allocate some portion or even all of
these funds to support federal gun violence prevention programs. These
programs should include, among others, school safety efforts, violence
intervention programs, public health research on gun violence,
resources for survivors, and law enforcement purposes, such as forensic
training to improve gun crime clearance rates or illegal firearm
surrender.
______
Mr. Huffman. Thank you. There is already, by the way, a way
for lawful citizens to apply electronically for silencer
permits. These are granted in under 70 days. A less secure
paper application, however, takes about 200 days, which means
that if this bill were to pass, criminals would be invited to
exploit its 90-day provision by filing the less secure paper
application and then waiting for automatic approval. It is just
terrible public policy.
Moving on to Mr. Graves' discussion draft, it proposes a
$500 million annual grant program to fund flood protection and
habitat restoration projects in coastal Louisiana. I think Mr.
Graves is trying to do a good thing on behalf of his region,
which I too, Mr. Chairman, have visited, and I understand the
urgent need for these restoration and resiliency projects to
strengthen flood protection, to mitigate the impacts of sea
level rise, and restore vital habitats that act as the first
line of defense against climate change-driven extreme weather.
So, I am very sympathetic to what Mr. Graves is trying to do
here, and would be willing to work with him on making this a
broadly bipartisan bill if he is open to a few changes
involving problematic provisions.
The categorical exclusion is a problem. It is overbroad.
Exempting large-scale projects like levees and sediment
diversion from essential fish habitat consultation could
actually harm fisheries and wildlife, and potentially worsen
flooding for certain communities. And by the way, essential
fish habitat consultation is not a big deal. It is non-binding.
So, if Mr. Graves is open to working with me on these
things, I think we could make this a very broadly bipartisan
bill, and I would like to try to do that.
Finally, Mr. Grothman's bill would cancel the Fish and
Wildlife Service's proposed biodiversity rule, the so-called
BIDEH rule for our National Wildlife Refuge System. It was
clear in our April hearing on this subject that some Members do
lack a basic understanding of the BIDEH rule, which the Fish
and Wildlife Service clarified repeatedly at that hearing, that
current practices such as cooperative agriculture, hunting,
fishing, and wildlife viewing will not be affected by this
rulemaking. Some Members prefer to just traffic in false claims
and conspiracy theories, but those are the actual facts.
I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the
record an opposition letter to this bill from dozens of
wildlife organizations.
And I will just note in closing that the bill is also
premature, since Fish and Wildlife Service has not yet even
finalized the rule.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony.
I yield back.
Mr. Bentz. Without objection, your offer is accepted.
[The information follows:]
September 10, 2024
Hon. Cliff Bentz, Chairman
Hon. Jared Huffman, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries
House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Bentz and Ranking Member Huffman:
On behalf of our organizations and our millions of members and
supporters we are writing to express our strong opposition to the
``Biodiversity Oversight Scaled-back And Fully Erased (BIOSAFE) Act,''
(H.R. 8632), one of the bills being heard today by the Subcommittee.
As the only network of lands and waters dedicated to wildlife
conservation, the National Wildlife Refuge System's importance to
American biodiversity cannot be overstated. Unprecedented challenges
threaten the System's viability, including climate change, habitat
loss, and the proliferation of invasive species, to name a few.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service or FWS) proposed
rule--``NationalWildlife Refuge System: Biological Integrity,
Diversity, and Environmental Health'' (BIDEH)--seeks to address these
challenges by creating a science-driven management framework that
favors natural conditions and processes. Regrettably, the so-called
BIOSAFE Act would require the withdrawal of the proposed rule,
undermining the Service's mandates under the National Wildlife Refuge
System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (Refuge Act).
The BIDEH mandate is a visionary directive requiring FWS to
``protect the [Refuge] System and individual refuges from threats'' \1\
by ``ensur[ing] that the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the System are maintained for the benefit of
present and future generations of Americans.'' \2\ Following its
passage into law, the Service adopted a BIDEH policy in 2001 but did
not promulgate regulations addressing specific threats such as
pesticide or agricultural use. The proposed rule and updated policy
finally rectify this shortcoming by providing common-sense management
direction addressing activities with the potential to harm BIDEH.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ H.R. Rep. No. 105-106, at 10 (1997).
\2\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668dd(a)(4)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This strategic approach is just as Congress intended. The Refuge
System must be managed for wildlife as a cohesive unit of nearly 600
refuges, while affording managers the flexibility to achieve the
establishment purposes of their individual refuges. Because the Service
accomplishes both with the proposed rule, we strongly support the
agency's approach and oppose the BIOSAFE Act.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
American Bird Conservancy Los Angeles Audubon Society
Andover Pollinator Pathway Maryland Pesticide Education
Network
Animal Welfare Institute Massachusetts Pollinator Network
Bat Conservation
International Mountain Lion Foundation
Bee Friendly Williamstown National Wolfwatcher Coalition
Bird Alliance of Oregon
(formerly Portland Audubon) Natural Resources Defense Council
Center for Biological
Diversity NH Audubon
Center For Food Safety North Central Washington Audubon
Society
Central/Eastern Oregon
Bitterbrush Broadband Northeast Earth Coalition
Checkerspot Farm NYC Plover Project
Christian Council of
Delmarva Oregon Natural Desert Association
Coalition on the
Environment and Jewish Life People Against Toxic Herbicides
(PATH)
Defenders of Wildlife Pepper K Woods
Earthjustice Pollinate Minnesota
Endangered Habitats League Pollinator Networks
Endangered Species
Coalition Pollinator Stewardship Council
Environmental Protection
Information Center--EPIC Predator Defense
FOGH (Friends of Grays
Harbor) Resource Renewal Institute
FOUR PAWS USA Rocky Mountain Wild
Friends of the Earth Save the Manatee Club
Friends of the Sonoran
Desert Southern Environmental Law Center
Friends of the White Salmon
River Species Unite
Friends of the WI Wolf and
Wildlife The #RelistWolves Campaign
Grays Harbor Audubon
Society The Conservation Angler
Great Lakes Wildlife
Alliance The Urban Wildlands Group
Grow Native Massachusetts The Xerces Society for
Invertebrate Conservation
Howling For Wolves Washington Wildlife First
Humane Action Pennsylvania Waterkeeper Alliance
Humane Action Pittsburgh Watertown Citizens for Peace,
Justice, and the Environment
IFAW--International Fund
for Animal Welfare Western Nebraska Resources
Council
International Wildlife
Coexistence Network Western Watersheds Project
Kettle Range Conservation
Group WildEarth Guardians
League of Conservation
Voters Wyoming Wildlife Advocates
Let Us Farm
______
Mr. Huffman. Thank you.
Mr. Bentz. 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 is Congressman Graves, who is recognized for
5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GARRET GRAVES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I like this
where we do a whole bunch of bills that Huffman hates. Because
then he has to split his talking points to 20 seconds per bill.
And I think we should keep doing this. I like it, no,
seriously, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.
And Mr. Huffman, I absolutely would welcome your input on
the legislation. And I do appreciate your travel down there,
where we went and looked at the coastal crisis that we are
experiencing in Louisiana.
And for those of you that aren't familiar with what is
going on, coastal Louisiana has lost about 2,000 square miles
of our coast, and it is like taking the land area of the entire
state of Delaware and wiping it off the map. And these aren't
just areas that are insignificant. As numerous analyses have
determined, including from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
some of the most important ecological productivity and some of
the most abundant wildlife on the entire continent is being
lost.
And as we have seen through storms like Hurricane Katrina,
Ida, Laura, Delta, Zeta, Isaac, Gustav, Ike, and many others;
in fact, Hurricane Francine is bearing down on us today, and
will start pounding the people that we represent tomorrow, and
that loss of buffer through our coastal areas means that our
citizens are now more vulnerable to death, destruction, to loss
of property, to loss of life, and to loss of that important
habitat.
There is a reason that our Chairman's state of Arkansas
does not evacuate whenever hurricanes come, and it is because
they have a buffer. It is called the state of Louisiana. And
our buffer is now gone. It is disappearing. And without
aggressive action, we are going to see an additional 2,000 to
2,500 square miles of land that will disappear in the next 50
years.
I said a minute ago that this area is not insignificant. I
want to talk more about the importance of this area that we
represent, the importance of this area that is the subject of
this legislation. If you are a fan of historic preservation,
the history of New Orleans, one day Google Fort Livingston, an
incredibly historic fort that is in crumbles, falling into the
Gulf of Mexico, one of the most important ports in the entire
United States. It is the reason that the Louisiana Purchase was
acquired.
Today, we produce, refine, and transport one of the largest
percentages of energy in the United States, a huge contribution
to our energy independence, our energy security in the United
States. It ends up being one of the second largest sources of
revenue for the United States Treasury, the energy production
off the coast of Louisiana. We are home to 5 of the top 15
ports in the nation. We are the second biggest commercial
fisheries state in the United States.
And I am going to make note, Mr. Chairman, that is because
Alaska is allowed to weigh the king crab shells. You don't eat
that part. I don't think it is fair. I am going to call us No.
1.
So, we have massive commercial fisheries production. We are
one of the top recreational fishing destinations in the nation.
I could go on and on. This state is nationally important, and
the reason that we have such a coastal crisis right now is
because of the rest of the country. And I will explain.
Right now, we are one of the largest watersheds in the
world. And as the Chair and Ranker have heard me say over and
over again, we drain Montana, New York, and Canadian provinces
all through our state. Our state inputs less than 1 percent of
the water into the Mississippi River, less than 1 percent. Yet,
we deal with everyone's water, which means we flood because of
everyone else, including from Canada.
And as a result of that and the great flood of 1927,
massive levees were put up on the river system, which went from
our state accreting or growing three-quarters of a square mile
a year to immediately seeing a loss of anywhere on the low end
from 5 or 6 square miles a year to, the high end, over 200
square miles in a single year. That was in the aftermath of
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005.
If any of you had a state where you were seeing such
massive loss, loss of where your homes and businesses are, loss
of ecological productivity, loss of economic value, of
community being destroyed and broken up, you would be fighting.
You would be fighting to give these areas a chance to help
restore, to help fight back. And that is exactly what this
legislation does.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, as Ranking Member Huffman noted,
subsidence is a big part of the problem that we are
experiencing. Some of the fastest subsidence or sinking rates
in the world are happening in Louisiana. We are one of 35
coastal states and territories. But because of our subsidence
rates, what is happening to us is what is projected to happen
in terms of relative sea rise to other coastal states and
territories, which means the solutions that we develop in
Louisiana are going to have national and international
scalability and application. We have to get this right. This
legislation helps to address that.
I urge support. I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses, and yield back.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you. I now recognize Congressman Grothman
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GLENN GROTHMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN
Mr. Grothman. Thank you, Chairman Bentz and the
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries, for allowing me
to speak on H.R. 8632, the BIOSAFE Act.
As we all know, on February 2, the United States FWS, under
the guise of the Department of the Interior, proposed the
National Wildlife Refuge System Biological Integrity,
Diversity, and Environmental Health Rule. If finalized, the
rule would impose new regulations prioritizing policies within
the Green New Deal agenda, rather than decades of local hunting
conservation strategies.
In Wisconsin, we have something called the Conservation
Congress made up of any hunter and fisherman across the state.
Every year they have hearings. They get things down to how are
things going to be handled county by county. It has been a
delicate process, lasting decades. I can't believe anybody is
going to be arrogant enough to think the Federal Government can
stick its nose in here and do better than these local people.
But included in this proposal are changes in the decision-
making process, stripping the authority of local biologists and
placing final policy decisions for local hunters and anglers in
the hands of Washington, DC. The bureaucratic red tape's sole
purpose is to restrict existing effective habitat management
and limit hunting opportunities and public access. The rule had
its commentary period extended to 60 days, and has received a
total of 54,000 criticisms from the general public.
A total of 29 outside groups joined in a unified letter to
Director Martha Williams, expressing their opposition to the
rule and requesting an immediate rescission.
Clearly it is mine and many others' belief that, without
proper action from Congress, many local conservationists, as
mentioned in the previous hearing held by this Subcommittee on
the same topic, will face iron-handed prohibitions. Even
outside organizations like the National Shooting Sports
Foundation, who pride themselves in being professionals on the
topic, have stated that the BIDEH rule would dismantle over a
century's worth of proven results that active participation in
wildlife conservation has yielded.
Others, working hand in hand with Fish and Wildlife, have
directed and assisted in successful policies, believe the
updated BIDEH rule would have negative outcomes and
deleteriously impact wildlife resources. Many believe this new
ruling to be unaligned with the National Refuge System
Improvement Act, enacted in 1997 to protect the more than 560
national wildlife refuges.
I look at my own district, Horicon Marsh, all we have done
to protect it, so carefully regulated. And boom, the Federal
Government is going to come in there and say, ``We know best.''
Should this ruling be finalized, we will see the
introduction of new procedures and directives that complicate
the environmental, biological, and ecological metrics for local
refuge managers. These policies would leave the door wide open
for increased inconsistency in local priorities, and therefore
foster the advancement of goals that directly conflict with the
fixed mission of the refuge.
State and local refuge managers are responsible for
adopting procedures that best suit the refuge's specific needs
and demands. For example, Wisconsin has 10 separate wildlife
refuges. Each refuge has different priorities, ranging from
protection of the greater sandhill crane to the restoration of
landscapes aligned with the prairie oak savanna. In fact,
Horicon Marsh, which is within Fond du Lac County and Dodge
County, is one of the largest freshwater marshes in the United
States, and is a critical rest stop for thousands of migrating
ducks and Canadian geese.
We have had local people who have dealt with this their
entire life. The idea that we are going to have a bunch of
Federal bureaucrats come in with their own rules, you guys
don't care, but I will tell you people are just going to go
ballistic in Wisconsin when they see the final law, final
result of this.
Local associations are responsible for state and local
refuge management. The individuals specified being affected by
this rule were ``disappointed that the Service failed to
incorporate their concerns during the pre-decisional time frame
of the BIDEH rule. Their dissatisfaction with the rule centered
primarily around restrictions on conservation farming and
predator control. Wisconsin, ranking 11th among U.S. states in
food, forestry, and agriculture exports would experience
devastating effects as their future is determined by
bureaucrats in Wisconsin.''
Enacting my bill, the BIOSAFE Act, would be a major win for
conservationists and avid hunters around the country. Again, I
urge the United States FWS to reverse course on this rule and
support policies recognizing the benefits our greatest
conservationists and American farmers provide to our wildlife
system. And man, they do a good job. Why do we have to say they
don't? I don't know.
Thank you.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you. I now recognize Congressman Zinke for
5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RYAN K. ZINKE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA
Mr. Zinke. Thank you, Chairman Bentz and Ranking Member
Huffman, for the opportunity to testify in favor of H.R. 8836.
I learned a lot as a Secretary. I went around to the
states. And one of the areas of concern was the Montana that I
grew up in has largely changed. When I grew up, public access
wasn't an issue, roads weren't closed, wildlife was everywhere.
But Montana, like most of the West, has changed. More people
have moved in, and the pressure on public lands and private
lands has continued to grow and will grow.
So, part of our job is, as I think of Montana and the
Congress, is that quite frankly, we inherited a lot of the West
and the outdoor experience from the great ones, Roosevelt,
Muir, Congress before, a lot of the Acts. The job of this
Congress in the future is to defend and protect the future. And
part of the future is making sure that the systems are healthy,
and that includes watershed, wildlife corridors, flyways.
Because it is the systems themselves that provide overall
habitat protection and health of our environment and the
outdoor experience that we all love.
As Secretary, I was in coordination with most of the
conservation groups. We established improving habitat quality
and Western big game, winter range and migration corridors. And
a lot of it was experience I had in Utah and mule deer in an
area which was mule deer, wildlife corridors probably for
millennia. It was now a development. And we tracked and put a
lot of resources in to determine where those wildlife corridors
were, and which wildlife corridors were under attack, and which
wildlife corridors could be repaired.
And this bill does a lot. It isn't as far reaching as I
would like, but it is a start. And in this city, where
everything is hyper-partisan sometimes, it is, I think,
refreshing to have bipartisanship on something that shouldn't
be a Republican or Democrat issue. Our public lands, I would
think, were an American issue and that we all have an
obligation to protect.
So with that, what this bill does, it authorizes funding
for programs such as wildlife movement area grant programs. It
clarifies which species are eligible. Again, this is a start.
As we evolve, other species will no doubt be included. It
clarifies and builds upon the work the Department of the
Interior began in coordination with state governments and
landowners. Because wildlife corridors are not just on public
lands or private lands, they are mixed, and I think we have a
shared obligation to make sure those corridors and the systems
are protected.
I would also like to thank Representative Beyer, my friend
from the great state of Virginia, for joining this bill and
offering that some things rise above partisanship, and
certainly maybe this will be a step of greater things to come.
With that, I would also like to thank some of the sponsors:
Boone and Crockett Club, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation,
Congressional Sportsmen, and there are others.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for your leadership and
work in bringing this bill and others. I look forward to
answering any questions, and I look forward to the remainder of
the testimony.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Bentz. I now recognize Congressman Blake Moore for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BLAKE D. MOORE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Chairman Bentz and Chairman
Westerman, for including the Stamp Act Revenue Transfer for
Wildlife and Recreation Act in today's hearing. It is great to
be back in the Natural Resources Committee.
And also to the Ranking Member, a good friend. While we
have some disagreements over this piece of legislation, it is
great to be back in Committee with you.
Currently, excise taxes collected on gun, ammunition, and
archery equipment sales are deposited into the Pittman-
Robertson Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund to be passed to
states for wildlife conservation and hunter education. My bill
builds upon the model and reallocates revenue collected from
firearm suppressor sales into that trust fund, significantly
increasing the money available to states and supercharging
wildlife and habitat conservation and recreation programs.
To be clear, my bill would not create a new tax when
purchasing a suppressor. It would instead reallocate funds from
the existing $200 tax stamp that applicants are required to pay
when purchasing a suppressor to conservation efforts. This is a
reallocation of what exists to going to something that, anybody
looking at it objectively, Pittman-Robertson has seen a
significant impact in the efforts that it is trying to
accomplish, in the conservation efforts. This is entirely about
putting more resources towards things that have had a good
track record, and something that we should be continuing to
promote. This is a win-win for outdoor enthusiasts and
conservationists alike.
I appreciate the opportunity to work with my colleagues in
the Committee to protect and improve this bill by ensuring that
a portion of the revenue is used to fund important programs
such as veteran suicide prevention, firearm safety, and
education programs for children, all while bringing more
resources to our state wildlife conservation programs.
Thank you to Mr. Schmitz for being here today, and to
America's sportsmen and women who have shown broad support for
this bill.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit a letter from
the Backcountry Hunters & Anglers expressing support for H.R.
6352 for the record.
Mr. Bentz. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Backcountry Hunters & Anglers
Missoula, MT
September 10, 2024
Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Westerman and Ranking Member Grijalva:
On behalf of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers (BHA), the voice for our
wild public lands, waters and wildlife, I write to express our support
for the Tax Stamp Revenue Transfer for Wildlife and Recreation Act
(H.R. 6352) led by Reps. Blake Moore (R-UT) and Jared Golden (D-ME). We
thank you for your leadership in considering this bipartisan
legislation which would build upon the proud legacy of sportsmen and
women led conservation in the United States through the ``user pays--
public benefits'' model and expand the source of funding for the
Pittman Robertson Wildlife Restoration Fund.
By redirecting 85% of the revenue generated from the existing $200
federal tax stamp on suppressor purchases from the Treasury General
Account to the Wildlife Restoration Fund, H.R. 6352 would provide
significant benefits for fish and wildlife across the United States.
The amount of new funding that would be directed should this
legislation become law was estimated to approach $200 million in the
2024 fiscal year. This would represent a more than 10% increase in
federal funding to support state fish and wildlife agencies'
conservation efforts, law enforcement, and hunter recruitment.
Additionally, 15% of the redirected funds would be utilized for the
development and maintenance of public shooting ranges. Supporting
designated shooting ranges will improve opportunities for hunters to
prepare for an ethical harvest before going into the field, enhance
public safety, and reduce litter from dispersed shooting on public
lands.
As hunters and anglers, we ask the committee to advance H.R. 6352
for the benefit of fish and wildlife across the United States. Doing so
will ensure opportunities for current and future generations of
hunters, anglers, and outdoor enthusiasts. We look forward to advancing
our shared priorities into law.
Sincerely,
Kaden McArthur,
Government Relations Manager
______
Mr. Moore. Thank you again for this opportunity to speak on
my bill, and I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. Bentz. I want to thank the Members for their testimony.
I will now introduce our second panel.
Mr. Steve Guertin, Deputy Director for Program Management
with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Washington, DC; Mr.
Steve Cochran, former Executive Director of Restore the
Mississippi River Delta in New Orleans, Louisiana; Mr. Paul
Nichols, Chairman of the Hitchcock County Board of
Commissioners in Trenton, Nebraska; Mr. Mike Leahy, Senior
Director of Wildlife Hunting and Fishing Policy with the
National Wildlife Federation in Washington, DC; and Mr. Taylor
Schmitz, Director of Government Relations of the Congressional
Sportsmen's Foundation in Washington, DC.
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 ``on'' 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. At the end of 5 minutes, the light will turn red, and I
will ask each of you to please complete your statement.
I will also allow all witnesses to testify before Member
questioning.
I now recognize Mr. Guertin for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF STEVE GUERTIN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PROGRAM
MANAGEMENT AND POLICY, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Guertin. Good afternoon, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member
Huffman, and members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify before you today on three bills: (1)
concerning revenue for the Wildlife Restoration Fund; (2) the
Services proposed Biological Integrity, Diversity and
Environmental Health, or BIDEH, rule and policy updates; and
(3) authorizing additional support for conserving wildlife
corridors.
The Wildlife Restoration Fund is one of the longest running
and most successful conservation efforts in the country. We
support Section 4 of H.R. 6352, as it increases funding for
this successful program. The Fund has provided billions of
dollars to support wildlife and habitat conservation. The Fund
has supported the construction, operation, and maintenance of
more than 800 target shooting ranges, and helped over 640,000
people annually participate in hunter education programs. This
Fund directly supports state-led conservation and recreation
efforts across the country, and is one of the most widely
supported conservation programs that we administer.
We support increasing revenue for the Fund, and would
welcome the opportunity to discuss some technical details on
implementation of Section 4 of this legislation.
Beyond Section 4, this legislation also includes provisions
related to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and
the Service defers to them on those provisions.
The Service opposes H.R. 8632, which directs the Secretary
of the Interior to withdraw our proposed BIDEH rule and policy
updates, which we will refer to as our BIDEH proposal.
Since issuing our current policy back in 2001, conservation
challenges have evolved. Refuge species and habitats are
increasingly threatened by climate change, biodiversity loss,
and other stressors. To help refuge managers better address
these threats, we released our BIDEH proposal on February 2.
The intent of our proposal was to provide a more consistent,
transparent, and science-based approach to upholding ecological
integrity on individual refuges and across the refuge system.
The proposal would standardize and clarify the existing
processes refuge managers use to make management decisions. It
does not ban any management practices, nor remove refuge
managers' decision-making authority, or supersede the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act's other mandates.
We appreciate the strong public interest in the proposal.
At the Committee's request, we extended the public comment
period on the proposal for 60 days, during which time we
conducted significant outreach to partners and stakeholders.
That public comment period closed on May 6, and we received
over 200,000 comments. We take seriously the feedback we
received, and we are currently reviewing the comments to
identify substantive issues that were raised.
And last, the Service supports the intent of H.R. 8836,
which would align with several existing initiatives that
support the conservation of wildlife corridors and partnership
with states, tribes, and private landowners.
Habitat loss and fragmentation are widely recognized as
some of the most important threats to biodiversity. Through our
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, Private Lands Program,
our Science Applications Program, and a cooperative agreement
with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, we are
currently invested in conserving important big game movement
areas across the West and removing barriers to wildlife.
H.R. 8836 would also reauthorize our successful Partners
for Fish and Wildlife Program, which supports voluntary
conservation efforts across the country. For example, in Fiscal
Year 2023 the Partners program worked with private landowners
to complete almost 1,900 projects and enhance over 180,000
acres of habitat and 215 miles of streams.
We strongly support reauthorization of this key program so
we can continue to work closely with private landowners on
locally-led conservation efforts. We would welcome the
opportunity to work with Congressman Zinke and the Subcommittee
staff to provide technical assistance on H.R. 8836 to ensure
that the conservation efforts authorized under this legislation
are able to be effectively implemented and are not duplicative
of ongoing efforts.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I would
be pleased to answer any questions the Committee has.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Guertin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stephen Guertin, Deputy Director for Policy, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior
on H.R. 6352, H.R. 8632, and H.R. 8836
Introduction
Good afternoon, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and Members
of the Subcommittee. I am Stephen Guertin, Deputy Director for Policy
for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) within the Department
of the Interior (Department). I appreciate the opportunity to testify
before you today on three bills related to: funding for state and
territorial wildlife restoration efforts; the Service's proposed
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health rule and
associated policy updates; and wildlife corridors.
The Service's mission 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 works across
multiple programs and with diverse partners to achieve this important
mission. The Service's Office of Conservation Investment provides
financial and technical assistance to state and Tribal wildlife
agencies to support locally led conservation, hunter education, and
recreational access projects across the country. The Service
administers the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System), which
conserves wildlife habitat across the country and provides recreational
opportunities for millions of Americans. The Service's Science
Applications program works with others to create an ecologically
connected network of lands and waters to support thriving fish,
wildlife, plants, and their habitats as well as thriving communities
for people. The Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife (Partners)
Program supports voluntary conservation efforts with private landowners
across the country, helping to protect habitat, support communities,
and conserve species at a local level.
The legislation before the Subcommittee today is relevant to each
of these programs and the Service's ability to carry out its wildlife
conservation mission.
H.R. 6352, Tax Stamp Revenue Transfer for Wildlife and Recreation Act
Section 4 of H.R. 6352 would amend the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration (Pittman-Robertson) Act to supplement funding for the
Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Fund (Fund). The legislation would
direct 85% of the current $200 tax on the transfer of firearm
suppressors from the U.S. Treasury to the Fund for Fiscal Years (FY)
2024 to 2030. Of that additional funding, 85% would support wildlife
restoration projects, habitat improvement, and hunter education. The
remaining 15% would be directed toward shooting range construction,
operation, and maintenance.
Since enactment of the Pittman-Robertson Act in 1937, through the
Wildlife Restoration Program, the Service has assisted states and
territories in their efforts to conserve habitat, enhance recreational
shooting opportunities, and advance hunter education. Currently, an
excise tax on firearm, ammunition, and archery equipment purchases
provides dedicated funding for the Fund, and wildlife agencies for
states and territories receive an apportionment of funding on an annual
basis to support these activities.
State fish and wildlife agencies have used these apportionments to
conserve wildlife populations, increase hunter access to millions of
acres of habitat, and welcome new people into the shooting sports. With
these funds, over 792 shooting ranges have been designed, constructed,
renovated or opened to the public. More than 35 million acres of state
or territory-conserved land are maintained for public access or habitat
management and over 650,000 people annually receive hunter education
supported by these projects. The Wildlife Restoration Program is one of
the nation's oldest and most successful conservation programs. For more
than 80 years, it has served as a model of conservation partnerships
among industry, states and territories, and the federal government,
protecting and restoring wildlife and habitat, providing recreational
opportunities, and engaging with hunters across the country.
The Service supports the intent of Section 4 of H.R. 6352 to
increase funding for the Wildlife Restoration Fund and would welcome
the opportunity to provide technical assistance to the sponsor and
Subcommittee on administration of new funds to minimize the need for
recipients to track new and current sources of funding separately. The
Service defers to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives regarding Sections 2 and 3 of H.R. 6352.
H.R. 8632, BIOSAFE Act
H.R. 8632 would require the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary)
to withdraw the Service's proposed rule, ``National Wildlife Refuge
System: Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health,''
and associated policy revisions (BIDEH proposal). The Service opposes
H.R. 8632.
Over the past 120 years, the Refuge System has grown to become the
largest and most diverse network of conservation lands and waters in
the world. The Refuge System includes 572 national wildlife refuges, 38
wetland management districts, and 5 marine national monuments, with
each unit established for a specific wildlife conservation purpose.
With at least one unit of the Refuge System found in every U.S. state
and territory, the Refuge System protects an incredible array of fish,
wildlife, plants, and habitats, and provides outdoor recreation
opportunities for millions of Americans each year.
The Service's administration of the Refuge System is guided by the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement
Act)--a visionary organic charter enacted by Congress with near
unanimous support. In addition to establishing a statutory mission for
the Refuge System, the Improvement Act includes 14 directives to guide
the Secretary's administration of the Refuge System. One notable
directive is the BIDEH mandate, which directs the Secretary to ``ensure
that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of
the Refuge System are maintained.''
The BIDEH mandate borrows key terminology from conservation biology
and emphasizes the need for the Service to consider how best to
maintain the ecological integrity of the Refuge System in administering
its individual units. It brings a management focus to maintaining
biodiversity across multiple scales and recognizes the need to identify
and develop comprehensive strategies to address threats using the best
available science.
In 2001, the Service issued a policy (601 FW 3) providing internal
direction for agency implementation of the BIDEH mandate. The policy
defined key terms and described the relationship between individual
refuge purposes, the Refuge System mission, and maintaining ecological
integrity. It provided refuge managers with guidance for maintaining
existing levels of ecological integrity and determining when and how to
restore ecological integrity, as well as guidance for addressing
external threats to refuge ecosystems.
When the Service adopted this policy in 2001, we did not anticipate
the extent of climate change impacts on national wildlife refuge
ecosystems or the need to clarify in regulation our interpretation of,
and authority to implement, the BIDEH mandate. However, over the past
20 years, the threats facing the Refuge System have evolved. National
wildlife refuges are experiencing the negative effects of climate
change while continuing to face other stressors, such as invasive
species and disease. At the same time, the Refuge System and the
healthy ecosystems it protects are increasingly vital to addressing
climate change and biodiversity loss.
To help refuge managers address modern conservation challenges and
ensure national wildlife refuges remain strongholds of biodiversity
into the future, we now see a need to provide guidance that helps
refuge managers better address conservation threats through improved
implementation of the BIDEH mandate.
On February 2, 2024, the Service published a proposal in the
Federal Register to revise the existing BIDEH policy and implement a
new rule to guide the management of national wildlife refuges to
maintain ecological integrity. With the BIDEH proposal, the Service
seeks to provide a more consistent, transparent, and science-based
approach for upholding ecological integrity at individual refuges and
across the Refuge System. We seek to codify our continued commitment to
managing refuge ecosystems as components of larger landscapes and
seascapes, particularly in the face of a changing climate. We also seek
to emphasize that managing the Refuge System through a landscape-scale
lens necessitates strong collaboration and coordination with partners
and stakeholders at all levels.
The BIDEH proposal accomplishes these objectives in several ways.
It provides, for the first time, a clear regulatory standard directing
refuge managers to ensure ecological integrity. This proposed standard
promotes management of the Refuge System as an ecologically
interconnected network of lands and waters, supporting both the Refuge
System mission and individual refuge purposes. It also instructs refuge
managers to use their professional judgment and the best available
science to ensure that management actions benefit wildlife conservation
by contributing to ecological integrity.
The BIDEH proposal includes updated definitions for ``biological
integrity'', ``diversity'', and ``environmental health.'' As with the
2001 BIDEH policy, these definitions continue to acknowledge the
importance of using historic conditions as a reference point for
maintaining and restoring ecological integrity. However, the updated
definitions recognize the impacts of climate change and other stressors
on refuge ecosystems, acknowledging that, in many cases, sustaining
historic conditions to maintain ecological integrity on national
wildlife refuges may no longer be possible.
In addition, the BIDEH proposal includes management directives for
maintaining ecological integrity across the Refuge System, providing a
framework through which refuge managers can determine and implement
management actions in a consistent way to meet refuge purposes, ensure
ecological integrity, and fulfill the Refuge System mission. These
directives are based on five key principles for managing refuges and
ecosystems: 1) addressing climate change impacts on wildlife; 2)
conserving and connecting habitats; 3) prioritizing the use of natural
processes to achieve wildlife management goals, while recognizing the
need to supplement natural processes when habitat conditions and
natural processes alone are insufficient; 4) upholding and, where
necessary, acquiring water rights, in accordance with local, state, and
federal laws; and 5) promoting and maintaining healthy soil, air, and
water.
Finally, the BIDEH proposal provides guidance for certain
management activities and uses that have a particular propensity to
affect ecological integrity, such as agricultural uses, predator
control, and pesticide use. The proposal provides increased clarity and
guidance for when, why, and how we apply certain management practices
and uses and emphasizes the importance of using the best available
science to inform decision-making.
Although the proposal directs a default position for each of the
specific management uses or activities, it does not ban the use of any
activities. The default positions are largely consistent with existing
Service policies and with the Refuge System's approach to permitting
uses of national wildlife refuges. Moreover, the proposal continues to
provide refuge managers with significant flexibility to implement these
activities as conservation tools on a case-by-case basis, in accordance
with the best available science. The BIDEH proposal would not supersede
any of the Service's other statutory obligations under the Improvement
Act, including directives related to public uses of wildlife refuges,
coordination with partners, or deference to the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).
By standardizing and clarifying the existing processes that refuge
managers are required to follow in making decisions regarding best
management practices and their influence on ecological integrity, we
believe the BIDEH proposal will decrease workload, provide consistency,
improve transparency to the public, and facilitate science-based
decision-making.
Prior to publishing the BIDEH proposal for public comment, the
Service coordinated extensively with state partners and Tribes through
collaborative meetings to receive input and feedback on the BIDEH
proposal. The Service received comments and suggested edits from states
and Tribes and incorporated many of these changes in the proposal. The
Service further worked with those who provided feedback to have
substantive discussions about their concerns and to seek further
understanding about potential changes.
During the public comment period, the Service received significant
public interest in the BIDEH proposal. At the request of this
Committee, and to ensure all partners and stakeholders had ample
opportunity to review the proposal and provide meaningful input, the
Service extended the initial 30-day public comment period by 60 days.
During the extended comment period, the Service took the
opportunity to conduct additional outreach on the BIDEH proposal. The
Service conducted listening sessions with state partners both directly
and through existing coordination meetings. Additional Tribal
coordination was conducted through webinars with Alaska Native Tribal
entities. The Service also directly sought input from other
stakeholders such as environmental groups, agricultural interests, and
sportsmen's organization.
The 90-day public comment period closed on May 6, 2024, and the
Service received more than 200,000 public comments. We appreciate the
robust public interest and engagement in the proposal and take
seriously the public input we received. We are currently reviewing
these public comments to identify, understand, and address the
substantive issues raised. These comments will help the Service ensure
we employ a consistent approach to ensure the ecological integrity of
national wildlife refuges.
As the conservation challenges facing our nation's wildlife refuges
continue to evolve, the Service periodically seeks to update our
guidance and regulations to ensure we can uphold the Refuge System
mission and mandates. The Service strongly opposes H.R. 8632, which
would undermine our ability to equip refuge managers to address modern
conservation threats and ensure the ecological integrity of the Refuge
System for current and future generations.
H.R. 8836, Wildlife Movement Through Partnerships Act
H.R. 8836 would require the Secretary to establish a Wildlife
Movement and Movement Area Grant Program, administered by the National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), to provide financial and technical
assistance for improving habitat connectivity in movement and migration
areas used by big game and other wildlife species.
Habitat loss and fragmentation are widely recognized as among the
most important threats to biodiversity. The continued viability of many
wildlife populations is dependent on populations' continual ability to
move, including daily movements among local resources, migrations
between seasonal ranges, long-range dispersal supporting gene flow, and
species range shifts over time in response to changing conditions. The
Service is dedicated to and actively engaging in the conservation of
wildlife corridors, including for big game species through multiple
programs and initiatives. For example, the Service's Partners for Fish
and Wildlife Program works with private landowners, states, Tribes, and
other partners on voluntary habitat conservation projects on private
and Tribal lands to conserve habitat, including in the western states
to benefit big game species. Additionally, the Service's implementation
of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, also known as the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, includes important fish passage projects
to connect aquatic habitat for fish species, as well as strategic
conservation of the sage brush ecosystem that is critical to mule deer,
elk, and pronghorn.
The Department and the Service also continue implementation of
Secretarial Order 3362, Improving Habitat Quality in Western Big-Game
Winter Range and Migration Corridors, which seeks to enhance and
improve the quality of big-game winter range and migration corridor
habitat. In March of this year, the Department and NFWF announced $11.8
million for 10 projects in seven states to restore habitat connectivity
and secure key migration corridors for wildlife in the American West.
The $3 million in grants and $8.8 million in matching contributions
were made possible through the Western Big Game Seasonal Habitat and
Migration Corridors Fund, which is administered by NFWF in part through
annual appropriations from the Service and other federal agencies in
support of Secretarial Order 3362.
The proposed Wildlife Movement and Movement Area Grant Program that
would be created under H.R. 8836 closely resembles NFWF's Western Big
Game Seasonal Habitat Migration Corridors Fund, which the Service
currently supports through a cooperative agreement, in accordance with
Secretarial Order 3362. NFWF's grant program provides support for the
conservation of winter range habitat and migration corridors in 11
western states for pronghorn, elk and mule deer. The Partners Program
has provided $3.5 million over the last five years to support projects
for big game conservation and wildlife-friendly fencing through this
program.
In addition to the Wildlife Movement and Movement Area Grant
Program, H.R. 8836 would reauthorize the Service's Partners Program
through FY 2030, which would allow the program to continue to support
collaborative, voluntary conservation projects directly benefiting the
species this legislation seeks to support. From FY 2019 to 2023, the
Partners Program has contributed $5.3 million and leveraged $14.1
million in funding from partners for projects that benefit big game
species on private and Tribal lands in western states. In FY 2023
alone, the Partners Program contributed over $2 million and leveraged
$3.1 million from partners. The Service supports reauthorization of the
Partners Program to continue supporting these collaborative
conservation efforts.
H.R. 8836 would also require the Secretary to establish a State and
Tribal Migration Research Program in the Service's Science Applications
Program to provide funds to state fish and wildlife agencies and Tribes
to collect and analyze data on wildlife movement areas. This
legislation also requires the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to continue
to support a Corridor Mapping Team to provide assistance to federal
agencies, states, and Tribes to map and assess wildlife movement areas.
The USGS is further directed to adequately protect sensitive
information with regards to private property and potential poaching of
wildlife.
The Service supports the intent of H.R. 8836 to improve habitat
connectivity for wildlife movement and migration and supports
reauthorization of the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. We would
welcome the opportunity to work with the sponsor and the Subcommittee
to provide technical assistance on the legislation to clarify and
improve implementation. We would also appreciate the opportunity to
work with the sponsor and Subcommittee to ensure that new
authorizations are not duplicative of existing programs.
Conclusion
The Service remains committed to supporting our partners in
conservation, responsibly managing the Refuge System, and working to
conserve and protect important wildlife habitat corridors. We recognize
the Subcommittee's interest in supporting an approach to conservation
that benefits people and wildlife, and we appreciate the opportunity to
continue that discussion. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
before you today. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you
may have.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Steven Guertin, Deputy
Director for Program Management and Policy,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mr. Guertin did not submit responses to the Committee by the
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman
Question 1. Mr. Guertin, as I brought up during my questioning at
the hearing on Rep. Grothman's BIOSAFE Act of 2024, the Human Society
of the United States published a detailed press release within an hour
of the proposed BIDEH rule being released to the public. This press
release states that this proposal ``would ban predator control on the
National Wildlife Refuge System.'' Despite this, in oral testimony
before the Committee on April 10, 2024 and written testimony provided
to the Committee on September 10, 2024 the service claims that the
proposed rule simply seeks to `provide guidance' on management
activities such as predator control. If implemented in its current
form, would the proposed rule impact predator control on refuge system
lands?
______
Mr. Bentz. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Cochran for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF STEVE COCHRAN, FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RESTORE
THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER DELTA, NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
Mr. Cochran. Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman,
Congressman Graves, and members of the Committee, my name is
Steve Cochran.
I first want to thank you for the opportunity to discuss
Congressman Graves' draft bill here today. I very much
appreciate his commitment and the Committee's interest here.
One quick note as I begin. My title now includes ``Ret'' at
the end, as you can see. That is because I retired in 2023 from
a 39-year public policy career. It also means I no longer speak
for anyone else, so I want to be clear about that. You get to
blame me, not the people I have been associated with.
In terms of background, I have worked in senior roles for
state and Federal officials, but the majority of my work has
been with environmental advocacy groups. Most relevant is my
experience as Executive Director for Restore the Mississippi
River Delta, a Louisiana-based coalition of three national and
two local groups. I also grew up around and now live in New
Orleans, giving me a frontline perspective on these issues.
I would like to start here with some context before
focusing on the specifics of Congressman Graves' bill.
First, as Congressman Graves began to make clear, the
Louisiana coast matters to America. As described by Louisiana's
Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, ``Louisiana plays
a vital role in the economic infrastructure of America, with
our ports carrying 20 percent of all U.S. waterborne commerce,
providing 20 percent of commercial fisheries, landing and
supplying 18 percent of our nation's oil.'' The impact to our
nation's energy and economic security will be devastating if we
fail to act. So, I want to make the point that each of these
pieces of America, ports, energy, fisheries, are directly
threatened by the ongoing losses along Louisiana's coast.
Second, because of the levying of the Mississippi River,
the mismanagement of development, most notably oil and gas, and
the addition of sea level rise, we are now losing every year
between 25 and 35 square miles of coastal protection to the
Gulf of Mexico.
Third, this draft legislation is not a new approach.
Recognizing needs in other parts of the country, the Congress
has already made significant place-based commitments and
investments in threatened coastal areas, including the
Everglades, the Chesapeake Bay, and the Great Lakes.
And finally, around the country these problems are
expanding. Climate-driven sea level rise and extreme weather
are disrupting coastlines and watersheds, insurance costs and
availability, and infrastructure in ways that inevitably arrive
at government's doorstep. Congress can and should get ahead of
this problem before it is too late, and that is what
Congressman Graves' draft bill begins to do, so let me talk
about that.
As many of you know, because of the Deepwater Horizon
disaster, Louisiana is receiving a total of $8 billion for
coastal restoration and protection over 16 years. This is not
free money. The cost to Louisiana has been probably $100
billion in oil spill damages to its coast, and 11 deaths just
from the explosion. It is the worst way to fund anything.
But here is the challenge. While that money has been
critical to the effort, the $8 billion will take us only
through a few more years, covering maybe 16 percent of the
minimum $50 billion need for coastal Louisiana. It is therefore
essential for success that we establish funding structures now
to support the continuation of the work. That is what this bill
does.
In terms of structure, setting this up at NOAA with
management by NMFS and NFWF makes sense, as both have direct
experience at both Federal and local levels to manage this.
And finally, there are two provisions related to NEPA and
essential fish habitat that I think warrant further discussion
among a broader set of constituents and informed experts. I am
glad to see Mr. Huffman and Mr. Graves both acknowledge that
and speak to it.
Time is of the essence when it comes to safeguarding
critical natural defenses, and this urgency must be balanced
with our long-standing commitments to environmental
protections, to integrated community benefits, and to true
public engagement. Finding this balance is hard, but it is
something we have to do.
I am a longtime member of the environmental community,
where these public processes and protections are seen as
bedrock. In fact, many of our challenges in the lower
Mississippi River are a result of not having such processes and
protections in place when decisions were made. So, it may be
surprising to hear me willing to even consider new ways to
expedite project reviews. I don't do that without worry, and
with a firm belief in maintaining the integrity of these public
processes. But I also believe that pragmatic discussion is both
worthwhile and necessary, and that now is the time to truly
wrestle with these challenges.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here. I will, of
course, be glad to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cochran follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steve Cochran, Former Director, RESTORE the
Mississippi River Delta Coalition
on H.R. Discussion Draft of H.R. ____ (Graves)
Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the
Committee, my name is Steve Cochran, and I am pleased to appear before
you today to discuss the draft legislation being developed by
Congressman Graves. I very much appreciate his commitment, and the
Committee's interest in further investment in the protection and
restoration of our nation's coastal resources. This afternoon I will
share my perspectives on the draft legislation, within the context of
the threats to those resources, particularly in the Lower Mississippi
River Watershed and the Louisiana coast, and including the implications
for communities, natural resources, and our nation's economy. Thank you
for the opportunity to be here.
Background
You will notice that my title begins with the word ``former''. That
should help make clear that I am here today in my own capacity, having
retired from a 39-year career in the public and nonprofit sectors in
2023. With that retirement, from a policy perspective I no longer speak
for anyone. In front of this committee, I'm a free man.
By way of background: over those 39 years I have worked in several
policy and political roles for state and federal officials, but for the
majority of them I worked at both local and national levels for
environmental advocacy groups.
Within that, I think my experience most relevant for today's
discussion began in 2014, when I took on the national role of managing
Coastal Resilience for the Environmental Defense Fund. Within that
work, I later took on the additional role of Executive Director for
Restore the Mississippi River Delta, a Louisiana-based coalition
comprising five advocacy groups--3 national and 2 local.
The Need for Action--Louisiana Coast and Beyond
From that perspective, I want to offer a few overarching thoughts
before focusing on the intent and specifics of Congressman Graves's
welcome discussion draft:
What happens in the Louisiana coastal zone has tremendous
significance to the rest of the country--its ports, energy
production, fisheries, agriculture, and culture are of
national value and significance. Here are some of the
measurements of that significance, as described by the
State's Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, the
agency charged with safeguarding these assets:
``Nearly two million people reside in the area we call America's
Wetland, many of whom have made their lives and livelihoods
in close proximity to Louisiana's coast. Our wetlands act
as a buffer to protect these citizens and their cherished
communities from storm surge.
Additionally, Louisiana plays a vital role in the economic
infrastructure of America, with our ports carrying 20
percent of all US waterborne commerce, providing 26 percent
(by weight) of commercial fisheries landings, and supplying
18 percent of our nation's oil. The impact to our nation's
energy and economic security will be devastating if we fail
to act.
Louisiana's wetlands also provide winter habitat for more than
five million migratory waterfowl and offers stopover
habitat for millions of neotropical migratory birds.
The coast's intrinsic value, as a working coast, home to millions
of citizens, and natural habitats makes it one of the
nation's most unique and valuable landscapes.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://coastal.la.gov/our-plan/2023-coastal-master-plan/
``What's At Stake''
The national significance of this coastline does not stop
there. Well over three-quarters of ALL freshwater flows
from rivers and streams throughout the U.S. flow through
Louisiana into the Gulf. In terms of port traffic, five of
the nation's 15 busiest ports are found here, and every day
that natural or human-caused disasters shut down navigation
here, America loses $300 million. These national assets
rely on the area's renowned coastal wetlands, which
themselves represent an essential national treasure that
hosts crucial fish and wildlife habitat, irreplaceable
natural wonders, and unparalleled outdoor experiences,
opportunities for sportsmen and women, and a vibrant
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
tourism economy.
Just as the Louisiana coast plays a unique role in
America's commercial and ecological health, so does this
area offer a unique window on coastal land loss and climate
threats to coastal resources, and on the risk all of that
poses to coastal communities and ecosystems. Each year,
between 25 and 35 square miles of coastal Louisiana simply
disappears into the open waters of the Gulf of Mexico,
laying claim to some of America's most vital wetland
habitat even as it endangers key infrastructure for our
national economy. Some 30 percent of all wetlands in the
Lower 48 are found here; in terms of annual wetland loss in
America, though, Louisiana accounts for fully 90 percent of
the damage. And each year, the stakes become greater--and
the potential consequences to Louisiana lives, property,
and resources, and to the nation's economic vitality, grow
more dire--as these losses, now exacerbated by sea level
rise, continue. We simply cannot afford to wait, and so
again I want to express my appreciation for this effort to
add new legislative solutions to the current mosaic of
investments aimed at reversing land loss and restoring the
coast.
As important as these resources and investments are, I
recognize that the Louisiana coast is far from the only
ecosystem facing mounting threats ranging from poor
resource management decisions to extreme weather events,
sea level rise, and other climate-related challenges. I
want to encourage all of us to keep that in mind over the
next several years as the needs for federal support of
coastal and watershed resilience increase. Congress has
already made significant place based commitments--with
billions in associated spending--to restoring threatened
coastal areas, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan (CERP) authorized over 20 years ago in the 2001 Water
Resources Development Act to the Chesapeake Bay Program
dating all the way back to 1983, to the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative (GLRI) established in 2009. I would
respectfully note that the surpassing value of Louisiana's
coast to the nation, and the ``code red'' threat level this
national asset faces, warrant a similarly focused
congressional response.
Again, these kinds of requests from around the country are
only just beginning--climate driven sea level rise and
extreme weather patterns are disrupting coastlines and
watersheds all around the world, and certainly in the
United States. These climate driven changes and damages are
also disrupting economic patterns, including insurance
costs and availability, and infrastructure in ways that are
inevitably arriving at governments doorsteps. My
experience, and therefore advice, is that the Congress
fully engage in this discussion and policy-making now,
before it has to take the form instead of purely reactive
and even more expensive disaster response. And that is part
of what this bill begins to do, building on previous
Congressional efforts.
Proposed Lower Mississippi River Watershed Legislation
The Graves discussion draft offers a crucial opportunity to bring
much-needed federal focus and financial capacity to the Louisiana
coast's race against time. The bill's primary focus is the
authorization of a new federal grant program, to be administered by the
National Marine Fisheries Service, to advance coastal protection and
restoration projects. I'd like to take a moment to describe the needs
for this kind of federal funding infusion, and how it would fit into
the context of other existing funding streams.
As many of you may know, as a result of the Deepwater Horizon (DWH)
disaster Louisiana will ultimately receive a total of $8 billion in
settlements and penalties, paid out over 16 years, that can be used for
coastal restoration and protection. The cost of that funding is
probably $100 billion dollars in oil spill damages to its coast, and at
least 11 deaths. It is the worst way imaginable to fund anything, and
it only begins to address the specific losses associated with DWH.
That funding, plus additional support from smaller sources such as
GOMESA, the Breaux Act, and other federal, state and local sources
allowed a jump start in what is conservatively estimated to cost over
$50 billion, plus annual operations and maintenance support. This jump
start was possible because Louisiana, under its Coastal Protection and
Restoration Authority, already had a plan in place before the money was
available. Louisiana's Coastal Master Plan process is truly a science-
based model for the nation, identifying and prioritizing a broad array
of projects and approaches to address the crisis facing coastal
communities and resources. As of today, the state's plan is now
effectively using over $1 billion per year, producing so far:
157 projects since 2007
+ An average of 10,000 jobs each year
+ 383 miles of levee improvement,
+ 71.6 miles of barrier island restoration, and
+ 105 square miles of habitat benefits (67,200 acres)
The projects and investments under the Coastal plan are estimated
to result in $10.7-$14.5 billion in avoided annual economic damages.
The plan, and the use of this funding, has so far been a real success
story.
Now, here is the challenge. This $8 billion disaster-fueled funding
will take us only through another 8 years, at best. That is not enough
money, nor does it buy enough time, for Louisiana to put the policies
and projects in place to sustain its coastline. It is absolutely
critical that we begin establishing the funding structures to support
the continuation of the work in coastal Louisiana as soon as possible,
so that planning, policies, projects identified in the Master Plan and
related annual plans can move at the fastest possible speed. This bill
or something like it could be a huge step forward, and I
enthusiastically support the $500 million commitment this legislation
proposes.
I view the funding approach in the bill as a smart and affordable
step forward, and given that Louisiana already has a plan in place, and
mechanisms for managing project funding, the state could take advantage
of such funding immediately. It really is folly to wait around until
inevitable natural disasters bring a ``flood'' of needs and fiscal
demands for Congress to address, including restoration and protection
projects that will only grow in costs and number. There is, perhaps,
still some time to get ahead of this. It has long been understood that
money spent ahead of a flood will return its investments at an average
6-1 rate. The bill offers a specific way to realize those returns, and
it may be a model for a more national approach for necessary federal
attention as these kinds of coastal and watershed needs are growing
around the country.
I would also note that setting up a program like this at NOAA seems
to make sense, as they have the requisite experience at both federal
and local levels to manage it. Recognizing that the bill is still in
its discussion-draft phase, I would encourage others to offer comments
on administration of the proposed new program.
Finally, I would highlight two provisions in the draft bill--
related to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and to
Essential Fish Habitat consultations under section 305(b)(2) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act--that warrant further discussion among a broader
set of affected constituencies and informed experts.
Time is indeed of the essence when it comes to safeguarding
critical natural defenses, ecological treasures, and communities from
the next inevitable disaster. That said, balancing those urgencies with
longstanding statutory commitments to environmental protections,
integrated community benefits, and true public engagement is hard. I am
a longtime member of the environmental community, where these statutes
are often referred to as ``bedrock'' protections, and in fact many of
our challenges in the Lower Mississippi River watershed are in part a
result of not having such protections in place before NEPA was in
operation. In that context, it may be surprising to hear me willing to
even consider new ways to expedite project reviews while maintaining
the underlying integrity of those vital public processes. I do so not
without worry, but with a firm belief that pragmatic discussion is not
only worthwhile but necessary, and I would argue that now is that time
to truly wrestle with these challenges. I look forward to joining that
broader conversation as this important legislation for the Louisiana
coast is considered.
Thank you for the opportunity to share these thoughts and
perspectives. I'll be glad to answer any questions.
______
Mr. Bentz. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Nichols for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF PAUL NICHOLS, CHAIRMAN, HITCHCOCK COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, TRENTON, NEBRASKA
Mr. Nichols. Thank you, Chairman Bentz and Ranking Member
Huffman, for the opportunity to provide testimony on today's
important hearing on the Swanson and Hugh Butler Reservoir Land
Conveyance Act. My name is Paul Nichols, and I am a Chairman of
the Hitchcock County Commissioners. I am also a proud, lifelong
resident of Hitchcock County, and my 14 years as the County
Commissioner has given me a deep appreciation for the people
and the issues that matter most to our community.
Joining me today is Ron Wertz with 18 years, and Scott
McDonald with 24 years. They are commissioners for our
community. And also Dawna Vap, a concessionaire, and a number
of members from the communities.
The legislation I am speaking about today directly responds
to the concerns raised by Hitchcock and Frontier Commissioners,
county constituents, and the Nebraska congressional delegation
regarding the Bureau of Reclamation's plan to end private,
exclusive use of the reservoirs.
Differences in opinions of how the concession area of the
Swanson Good Life Marina and the Hugh Butler Lighthouse Marina
should be managed moving forward highlights the need for local
control and management over these areas.
The legislation proposes transferring 77.2 acres of land
which do not include the water or power assets to the counties
at no cost to the Federal Government. It is important to note
that the transfer would not compromise the public access to the
lake or its use, and the counties are committed to providing
substantial effective management.
We are talking about over 180 households who reside in the
two lake communities through the summer months, which are key
economic areas for our businesses, supporting jobs and outdoor
recreation, tourism, and hospitality. These communities are
crucial economic hubs for our area, offering respite for people
in southwest Nebraska, northwest Kansas, and eastern Colorado,
providing a getaway from the farm and ranch families amidst a
mounting rural mental health issue crisis.
This conveyance is necessary to prevent the Swanson and
Hugh Butler Lake communities and concessionaires from being
removed, which would have dangerous or disastrous consequences
for the population of Hitchcock and Frontier Counties, and
jeopardize southwest Nebraska's economy and way of life. When
stakeholders expressed concern about the community
displacement, the Bureau was the first to suggest that we do a
land transfer as a potential solution. Therefore, action on
this issue is urgently needed to prevent the outcome that could
unfold over the next few months from the date of this hearing.
The looming deadline of February 25, when the Bureau of
Reclamation's extended concession contracts expire, highlights
the critical need for the immediate action. By transferring the
land to the counties, it would ensure that the recreational
opportunities private exclusive use continues to be provided in
a way that suits the community and visitors.
Importantly, the transfer won't compromise public access to
the lake or its use. In fact, the legislation expressly
requires the continuation of public access.
The present concessionaires at the Swanson and Hugh Butler
have been established for a combined 41 years.
The county confronted several severe economic difficulties,
evidenced by median household income of just $42,000. Recent
shutdowns of the nursing home and several restaurants have
dealt a heavy blow to the community. Despite these challenges,
Swanson and Hugh Butler Lake are thriving. The marinas offer a
variety of free and accessible activities for children and
families to enjoy.
Actually, the marinas are often used as a place for church
services, weddings, funeral services, car shows, and concerts.
The closure would not only deprive residents and visitors of
recreation amenities, but would also have a devastating impact
on the local businesses that rely on such revenue. The loss of
jobs, diminished property values, and reduced quality of life
would be severe consequences of allowing these valuable assets
to fall into disrepair.
The economic contributions of these lake communities are
crucial for supporting services like firefighting, law
enforcement, local government, schools, and NRDs.
I see I am out of time, but I want to thank you for it, and
I am open for questions on how we propose to do all this. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nichols follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul Nichols, Chairman of the
Hitchcock County Commissioners
on H.R. 8413
I. Introduction
Thank you, Chairman Bentz and Ranking Member Huffman for the
opportunity to provide testimony at today's important hearing on the
Swanson and Hugh Butler Reservoirs Land Conveyances Act. My name is
Paul Nichols, and I am the Chairman of the Hitchcock County
Commissioners. I am also a proud lifelong resident of Hitchcock County,
and my 14 years as a County Commissioner have given me a deep
appreciation for the people and the issues that matter most to our
community. Joining me are Ron Wertz and Scott McDonald, the other two
Hitchcock County Commissioners. Also joining me are members of the lake
communities and Dawna Vap a concessionaire at Swanson Reservoir. The
legislation I am speaking about today directly responds to concerns
raised by Hitchcock and Frontier County Commissioners, county
constituents, and the Nebraska congressional delegation, regarding the
Bureau of Reclamation's plan to end private exclusive use at the
reservoirs. Impacted stakeholders feel this reflects the prior
mismanagement of the concession areas at the Swanson Good Life Marina
and Hugh Butler Lighthouse Marina and the need for local control and
management over these areas.
The proposed Swanson and Hugh Butler Reservoirs Land Conveyances
Act aims to transfer a total of 77.2 acres of land--comprising less
than 1% of the total acreage of Swanson and Hugh Butler Reservoirs.
Importantly, this transfer involves no cost to the federal government
and does not transfer any water or power assets. The transferred areas
do not impede public access to the lake nor obstruct public use of the
water or surrounding areas. By transferring ownership to the counties,
we can ensure that these valuable assets are managed effectively and
continue to benefit the local communities, without imposing any
additional financial burden on taxpayers.
The two lakeside communities that are home to over 180 households,
and the concession areas at Swanson and Hugh Butler Reservoirs, are
vital economic drivers for businesses and local communities, supporting
jobs in tourism, outdoor recreation, and hospitality. These two marinas
and lake home communities are economic lifelines for Southwest Nebraska
and the surrounding region. They serve as vital hubs for small
businesses and provide much-needed respite for the hardworking
populations of Southwest Nebraska, Northwest Kansas, and Eastern
Colorado. For farm and ranch families, these facilities offer a crucial
escape from the relentless demands of agricultural life. At affordable
prices, they provide a place to relax, socialize, and spend quality
time with loved ones. This is especially important given the growing
mental health crisis in rural areas.
As highlighted by the story of Allison Brunswig, who grew up in the
Swanson Lake community, these recreational areas offer a sense of
belonging, emotional support, and connection that is invaluable to
residents. Allison's family has cherished countless memories at the
lake, and of her grandmother, who was a beloved member of the community
known for her kindness and generosity. The reservoir community has
provided Allison and her family with a comfortable and nurturing
environment to remember their departed loved ones. The decision made by
the Bureau of Reclamation to allow these concession contracts to expire
would lead to a tragic outcome for both the county community and the
local population.
As you are aware, the Swanson and Hugh Butler Reservoirs Land
Conveyances Act transfers ownership of the concession areas, Lakeview
Lodge, and cabins at the Swanson and Hugh Butler Reservoirs from the
Bureau of Reclamation to Hitchcock and Frontier Counties. Indeed, the
Bureau of Reclamation first suggested this land transfer as a potential
solution to the concessionaries in March 2022 when the Bureau initially
took over management of these two concession areas. This conveyance is
necessary to prevent the Swanson and Hugh Butler Lake communities and
concessionaries from being removed, which would have disastrous
consequences for the populations in Hitchcock and Frontier Counties.
The removal of these lake home communities and marinas jeopardizes
Southwest Nebraska's economy and way of life. Therefore, action on this
issue is urgently needed to prevent a catastrophic outcome that could
unfold over the next few months from the date of this hearing. The
looming deadline of February 2025, when the Bureau of Reclamation's
extended concession contracts expire, highlights the critical need for
immediate action.
II. Background on Swanson and Hugh Butler and Impact on Community
The present concessionaries at the Swanson and Hugh Butler
Reservoirs have been around for a collective 41 years--Hugh Butler's
for 26 years and Swanson's for 15 years. The concessionaries were
created shortly following the completion of the Trenton Dam Project in
1953, and the area has been beautifully maintained by the
concessionaires and lake community since then. Currently, the land
resides near the small towns of Trenton and Stratton in Hitchcock
County, Nebraska. The county is facing significant economic challenges.
With a median household income of only $42,813 and with over 50% of its
students qualifying for free or reduced-price lunches in 2024,
Hitchcock County's challenges serve as a stark indicator of the area's
overall economic struggles. The community has been hit hard by the
recent closures of its nursing home, multiple restaurants, and the
downtown newspaper. The concession area's closure would only add to
these economic hardships, further straining the already fragile
financial situation of many residents.
Despite these challenges, the Swanson and Hugh Butler Reservoirs
are developed and thriving communities. The marinas offer a variety of
free and accessible activities for families to enjoy in a safe outdoor
environment. These include fishing tournaments, volleyball, car shows,
horseshoe pits, family reunions, potlucks, musical bands and concerts.
They also provide recreational fishing, hunting, boating supplies, and
general merchandise items to the public. Additionally, the marinas are
often used as a place for church services and wedding and funeral
services. Since 2011, the Good Life Marina, one of the few remaining
local restaurants within a thirty-mile radius of the reservoirs, has
served over 300,000 meals to the public. Given the recent closure of
local restaurants, Good Life Marina is an essential economic driver for
the community and an important local staple for community residents.
Many of these businesses, attractions, and events are attended by
individuals who drive several hours away to experience the beautiful
marinas and lake communities.
The concessionaries and lake community closure would not only
deprive residents and visitors of beloved recreational amenities but
would also have a devastating impact on local businesses that rely on
such revenue. The loss of jobs, diminished property values, and reduced
quality of life would be severe consequences of allowing these valuable
assets to fall into disrepair. Furthermore, the economic contributions
of lake communities are crucial for supporting vital services like
firefighting, law enforcement, and local government. Their survival is
essential for the well-being of our small rural towns. An example of a
business that relies upon a vibrant marina is Surfs Up Marine in
McCook, Nebraska. Surfs Up Marine relies heavily on the vibrant lake
communities for over 75% of its revenue. As the only boat retailer in
the region, Surfs Up Marine is a crucial business for the local
economy. The concessionaries and lake communities' closure will
therefore have far-reaching consequences, not only depriving residents
and visitors of outdoor recreational amenities but also jeopardizing
the economic viability of local businesses that depend on this revenue.
III. Capability in Managing the Land and No Cost to Taxpayers
Moreover, the Hitchcock and Frontier County Commissioners are more
than capable of managing and operating the Swanson and Hugh Butler
Reservoirs concessionaries. Each county is comprised of three
Commissioners, each of whom sits on several local boards and is active
in their community. Hitchcock County Commissioners, with their combined
experience of 54 years, have successfully managed a team of 31
employees and overseen a total operating budget of over $2.5 million.
Similarly, the Frontier County Commissioners, boasting 61 years of
combined experience, have managed a team of 46 employees while
overseeing an operating budget of $10 million. These impressive
credentials demonstrate their ability to effectively manage
concessionaires and ensure the efficient operation of public amenities.
By adopting a similar contract structure as the Nebraska Game and Parks
Commission had with the concessionaires in the past, the counties will
maintain oversight and enforce all Nebraska health, safety, and fire
codes. Additionally, the implementation of yearly inspections will
further ensure the compliance and safety of concession operations. The
County Commissioners' commitment to public service and their deep
understanding of the needs of their communities will be invaluable in
guiding the future of these marinas and lake home communities.
Unfortunately, the Bureau of Reclamation's plans have only created
confusion and misunderstandings for individuals and businesses
operating within these lake communities. It has been difficult for
stakeholders to navigate the regulatory landscape and plan for the
future. The decision to allow the concession contracts to expire in
February 2025 only adds to this uncertainty. This termination of
contracts will create significant disruption for businesses, employees,
and the communities that rely on these marinas. The cost of removing
existing structures will be substantial, imposing a financial burden on
trailer owners and businesses forced to relocate their belongings. As
such, it is imperative that Congress passes the Swanson and Hugh Butler
Reservoirs Land Conveyances Act to provide a clear path forward for the
management and development of these marinas and lake home communities,
ensuring their continued viability and continued economic benefits to
the region.
IV. Conclusion
The closure of the Swanson and Hugh Butler Reservoirs concession
areas would have a devastating impact on the local economy, small
businesses, and the well-being of residents in Hitchcock and Frontier
Counties. The proposed legislation, the Swanson and Hugh Butler
Reservoirs Land Conveyances Act offers a viable solution by
transferring ownership of these areas to the counties, which have the
expertise and experience to manage them effectively. By passing this
bill, Congress can ensure the continued viability of these vital
community assets and prevent a catastrophic outcome for the region.
Thank you, Chairman Bentz and Ranking Member Huffman, and the entire
Committee, for providing me with this opportunity to speak.
*****
The following document was submitted as a supplement to Mr. Nichols
testimony.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__
Mr. Bentz. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Leahy for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF MIKE LEAHY, SENIOR DIRECTOR OF WILDLIFE, HUNTING,
AND FISHING POLICY, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, WASHINGTON,
DC
Mr. Leahy. Thank you, Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member
Huffman, and members of the Committee for considering the
Wildlife Movement Through Partnerships Act at this hearing. My
name is Mike Leahy. I am the Senior Director for Wildlife
Hunting and Fishing Policy at the National Wildlife Federation.
I am representing our federation, which includes a partner
on the ground, an organization in almost every state and
territory, and over 7 million members including over 23,000
each in Oregon's 2nd district and California's 2nd district.
Our mission is to help wildlife and people thrive in a rapidly
changing world. And one of the most important strategies to
accomplish that as the world is increasingly developed is to
make sure wildlife can continue to navigate the landscape. And
that is particularly important as climate change shifts
habitats around.
Migrations are one of nature's great spectacles, but they
are also essential to the wildlife that undertake them, and
then the people that depend on that wildlife for hunting, for
outdoor recreation, for cultural traditions. Equally important
are the more mundane and shorter movements that wildlife make
on a regular basis to access food, water, shelter, to mate, and
to rear young.
However, as our population and infrastructure have not only
grown, but have spread out throughout the country, we have
fragmented a lot of our habitat, and we continue to do so at an
alarming rate. And fragmentation of habitat leads to loss of
habitat, and that is one of the main reasons over a third of
our species in the United States are considered at heightened
risk of extinction.
This is an area where congressional leadership is really
needed, similar to how Congress put in place the Wildlife
Crossings pilot program to address the impact of roads and
traffic on wildlife, and vice versa. The natural next step is
for Congress to support the work going on around the country to
maintain the movement of wildlife and migrations throughout the
country.
Fortunately, like with the Wildlife Crossings pilot
program, there is a lot of bipartisan support for this,
evidenced by the sponsors of the bill. There is a lot of public
support and awareness. There is support throughout the wildlife
community, and there is also an established body of work to
build off of, and a lot of that work stems from Representative
Zinke's Secretarial Order when he was Secretary of the Interior
that he already mentioned addressing and improving habitat for
migratory big game in the West. So, that is a great basis of
work because that has proven very effective and popular. And
Secretary Haaland has continued that work, but it suffers from
a lack of consistency and reliability, and that is where this
bill could help.
The Act also incorporates elements of Representative
Beyer's bills that he has passed through this chamber on a
number of occasions. The bill offers grants for projects on the
ground, which is important. It improves coordination among the
Federal agencies, particularly Interior, Agriculture, and
Transportation. It also supports state and tribal research, and
it continues essential Federal support that underlies a lot of
that from the U.S. Geological Survey and the Fish and Wildlife
Service Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program.
The Act also extends the benefits of this model to other
states, tribes, communities, and wildlife around the country
because there is a lot of good work going on around the
country, and that deserves to have an opportunity to be
supported and receive funding, as well.
The legislation acknowledges the crucial role that tribes
have played in all of this by including them as core partners,
which is terrific.
I also want to acknowledge the good work of Representative
Gallego and Senator Lujan, who have worked to specifically
address the needs of tribes with their Native American Wildlife
Habitat Connectivity Act, which would be a nice complement to
this bill because it would provide grants and technical support
specifically for tribes.
The Wildlife Movement through Partnerships Act has been
written to avoid controversy by focusing on collaborative
conservation and conservation without conflict. The work, by
its nature, is things that a lot of landowners would like to do
but lack resources for, like modifying fences and habitat
leases. Project applicants must get approval from the relevant
state or tribe. Fifty percent of the funds will continue to go
to big game. Private landowners' military readiness will not be
impacted.
We have seen the benefits of this approach and model in our
own projects in Montana and elsewhere, where in Montana we have
worked with private landowners, volunteers, state and Federal
agencies to modify 44 miles of fence to make them better for
big game, and pronghorn in particular.
The Wildlife Movement Through Partnerships Act is the
result of years of work on the ground, but also at the policy
level to identify a legislative package that would be broadly
supported and bipartisan and have a good chance of passage.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I encourage
you to take advantage of this bipartisan conservation
opportunity and move this bill to the Floor as soon as
possible. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Leahy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael Leahy, Sr. Director of Wildlife, Hunting,
& Fishing Policy, National Wildlife Federation
on H.R. 8836, H.R. 6352, and H.R. 8632
Thank you Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of
the Committee, for holding this hearing to consider the historic
Wildlife Movement Through Partnerships Act, and other wildlife related
legislation. And thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of
the National Wildlife Federation (``NWF''), our 52 state and
territorial affiliates, and our nearly 8 million members, supporters,
and followers, including over 23,000 in Oregon's 2nd District, and over
23,000 in California's 2nd District.
H.R. 8836 (Rep. Zinke), ``Wildlife Movement Through Partnerships Act''
Congress did a great thing for wildlife and people in 2021 by
coming together in a very bipartisan way to establish the Wildlife
Crossings Pilot Program in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
This program provides the first federal funding committed to wildlife
overpasses, underpasses, and related infrastructure to help wildlife
move across roads safely, and to reduce wildlife vehicle collisions.
This program was well supported in Congress and throughout the
community of wildlife supporters, and has proven incredibly popular and
effective, with demand far exceeding available resources.
The corollary to this program, and next great thing Congress can do
to help wildlife navigate our increasingly fragmented landscape, is to
support the work of wildlife professionals to maintain wildlife
movements and migrations beyond the transportation network. Congress
has not yet taken meaningful action in support of America's spectacular
terrestrial wildlife migrations, or more mundane but equally important
daily movements. This leaves a major gap in the framework of wildlife
laws designed to sustain America's wildlife populations, and the people
and communities that depend on them.
This gap needs to be plugged as soon as possible. One of the
primary reasons more than one-third of wildlife species are at
heightened risk of extinction in the US is the loss of habitat, and
fragmentation is a leading reason habitat is degraded. Untold wildlife
migrations and movement pathways have already been cut off and lost.
Unfortunately, wildlife face increasing challenges moving around the
American landscape as the US population not only continues to grow but
also spreads out around the country, requiring transportation,
buildings, other infrastructure, and natural resources, to support it.
Maintaining wildlife's ability to move--for migration, mating, rearing
young, and accessing food, water, and shelter--is therefore a critical
conservation priority in the 21st century.
Fortunately, we still have many spectacular wildlife migrations in
this country, and scientists are still discovering more. And we have
many wildlife populations that are currently able to access the
resources and habitats they need, although we cannot assume that will
continue to be the case without proactive conservation work. Also
fortunately, we know how to identify and manage the pathways wildlife
need. Wildlife professionals for federal and state agencies, tribes,
and nongovernmental organizations have been working at this for
decades, but particularly in recent years. Their work has been greatly
enhanced by technological advances such as Global Positing System
collars. However, there are not enough resources for the work that is
needed to manage western big game migratory habitat, much less the
movements of many other species of terrestrial wildlife.
Elements of the Bill
The Wildlife Movement Through Partnerships Act addresses the
challenge of making sure wildlife can get where they need to go by
endorsing and building on a growing body of proven programs. H.R. 8836
provides clear Congressional authorization and direction for important
ongoing work initially established by Congressman Zinke in 2018 when he
was Secretary of the Interior. His Secretarial Order 3362 (``SO
3362''), ``Improving Habitat Quality in Western Big-Game Winter Range
and Migration Corridors'', was the first program of its kind. Like the
wildlife crossings program, it was and still is widely supported. It
has been very effective in collaboratively conserving three big game
species in the western US. Secretary Haaland and her staff recognized
the importance of the program and extended it, and expanded it to more
places and partners, specifically including more tribes.
H.R. 8836 also builds upon the Migratory Big Game Initiative of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (``USDA'') formally that focuses some of
the USDA's considerable resources on supporting private landowners who
support wildlife moving across their land, starting in Wyoming then
expanding to Idaho and Montana and, with enough resources, other states
as well. H.R. 8836 also builds on the Wildlife Crossings Pilot Program.
All of these programs are specifically referenced and endorsed in the
bill.
The Wildlife Movements Through Partnership Act provides clear
Congressional support for these now well established programs, and
requires better coordination among them, in some important ways.
Wildlife Movement & Movement Area Grants: The bill
establishes a grant program to formalize the ongoing
support of federal agencies for projects that lease
habitat, modify fences, reduce collisions, or conserve
lands to reduce barriers to wildlife movements in areas
recognized as important by a state or tribe. Grants are
awarded competitively, with preference given to national or
regional priorities, and to projects involving partners. A
bare minimum of 50% of funds are committed to big game such
as deer, elk, pronghorn, wild sheep, and moose.
State and Tribal Migration Research Program: States and
Tribes are researching how to identify and manage wildlife
movement needs. This program will provide direct support
for their important studies.
Corridor Mapping Team: This bill makes sure the Interior
Secretary continues the U.S. Geological Survey Corridor
Mapping Team which has been so instrumental in providing
analysis and identification of migration routes for the
priority western big game ungulates. The US Geological
Survey supports wildlife connectivity work by states,
tribes, and other federal agencies by applying science and
mapping expertise to corridors and migrations.
Cooperative Research Program: The bill commits funding
from this program to researching habitat connectivity in
big game movement areas.
The Wildlife Movement Through Partnerships Act extends the benefits
of these successful existing federal programs to more wildlife, and
more states. Important terrestrial wildlife migrations and movements
for a wide range of species are at risk throughout the country, so this
bill provides an opportunity for states and tribes and communities
throughout the US. to receive grants, research funds, or support.
The Act also reauthorizes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
popular and essential Partners for Fish & Wildlife Program, which
supports conservation efforts on private, tribal, and other lands
across the country. The US Fish & Wildlife Service has provided
important financial and technical support for wildlife migration and
habitat connectivity work through this program.
Tribes
The bill explicitly recognizes tribes as primary partners. The bill
also addresses the funding challenges many tribal wildlife programs
have by allowing the match requirement to be waived on a case-by-case
basis. We encourage Congress to consider additional support for the
considerable work tribal nations do to connect and maintain wildlife
connectivity on their lands and waters. Tribal nations own or influence
the management of nearly 140 million acres across the United States.
These lands provide essential habitat and connectivity for migrating
species. However, this reality is not reflected in the federal dollars
available to tribal nations for fish and wildlife management.
Tribal nations have carried the responsibility and financial burden
of conserving fish and wildlife on their lands and participate in
wildlife management processes and collaboratives across federal, state
and private boundaries--especially when it comes to maintaining
wildlife movements. Tribal nations were not, however, explicitly
included in SO 3362 initially, despite tribes owning or managing more
than 45 million acres in the 11 western states the order encompassed.
This impacted funding available to Tribes. The Western Big Game
Seasonal Habitat and Migration Corridors Fund administered by the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation was established in 2019 to
implement Secretarial Order 3362. Since its inception only three of the
sixty grants awarded have gone directly to tribal nations.
Congressman Gallego and Senator Lujan are providing leadership to
try and address these inequities. We support their ongoing efforts pass
legislation that would complement H.R. 8836 by creating a grant program
specifically for tribal nations to access funds for migration research
and on-the-ground habitat management. We're also grateful for
Congresswoman Dingell's continued leadership of the Recovering
America's Wildlife Act which would ensure sustainable, non-competitive
funding to federally-recognized tribes for the first time ever.
Non-controversial Nature of the Work
Notably, the Wildlife Movement Through Partnerships bill focuses on
and funds largely non-controversial conservation work, consistent with
the precepts of Conservation Without Conflict. This is important
because there can be controversy and fear around concepts like wildlife
corridors. This bill has been carefully crafted to support voluntary,
collaborative conservation partnerships. For starters, the work itself
is generally non-controversial, for example habitat leases, fence
modifications, and wildlife-vehicle collision reduction. Any work with
landowners would be voluntary and collaborative, and landowners may
receive financial or in-kind support for their participation, depending
on the project. Project applicants must get written support from the
relevant state or tribe. Savings clauses hold private landowners and
military readiness harmless. Access to lands for outdoor recreation is
protected, plus most of the projects will benefit hunting
opportunities. These efforts will contribute to and strengthen the
outdoor economy, estimated at $1.1 trillion and over 5 million jobs by
the US Department of Commerce in 2022.
Bipartisan and Broad Support for the Bill
The truly bipartisan nature of this legislation is inspiring, and
confirms that wildlife conservation is an issue that continues to unite
Americans. The fact that the bill is led by two longtime leaders on
habitat connectivity is particularly fitting. In addition to issuing So
3362, Representative Zinke (R-MT) is a leading cosponsor of the Habitat
Connectivity on Working Lands Act, H.R. 8104. Representative Beyer (D-
VA) was maybe the second Member of Congress to try to improve habitat
connectivity in the US through legislation, and the first to try to
provide a national framework for such work, with the Wildlife Corridors
Conservation Act that he has passed through the House of
Representatives in past Congresses. The bipartisan list of cosponsors
of the Wildlife Movement Through Partnerships Act speaks for itself.
There is similar bipartisanship emerging on the Senate companion bill
of the same name, S. 4953, sponsored by Senators Padilla (D-CA) and
Hoeven (R-ND).
Support for H.R. 8836 is strong across the spectrum of wildlife
supporters, as the letters of support being entered into the record
show. There is support from the hunting community, the environmental
community, state agencies, tribes, and others. This legislation is also
supported by NWF's diverse state affiliate organizations. This level of
bipartisanship, broad support, and agreement is similar to that
preceded the establishment of the Wildlife Crossings Pilot Program.
An Example of the Bill's Benefits
The positive impacts this legislation will have on-the-ground are
exemplified by one of the National Wildlife Federation's own wildlife
connectivity projects. NWF's regional office in Montana is actively
working to improve connectivity in the High Divide region of Montana.
Our work with Montana's Fish, Wildlife and Parks agency (MTFWP) and in
the Horse Prairie, Grasshopper Valley, Big Hole Valley, Medicine Lodge,
Centennial Valley, and the Frying Pan Basin areas surrounding Dillon,
Montana, are not by accident. These partnerships and locations were
identified as important winter range and migration corridors for
pronghorn via the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) pronghorn GPS
movement study that was spurred by SO 3362.
Through our collaboration with the Southwest Montana Sagebrush
Partnership, we have modified 44 miles of fence to wildlife-friendly
specifications that benefit pronghorn, elk, mule deer and other
wildlife species. Over the past eight months alone, NWF staff
coordinated 28 miles of fence modifications and removals by working
with eight private landowners and engaging the community through two
volunteer ``fence pull'' events and project planning with local
contractors.
In the spring of 2023, NWF assisted FWP with a fence prioritization
process that paired pronghorn movement data with fence data to identify
highly impermeable fences. This analysis identified over 50 miles of
problematic fencing (see page 79 of the FWP 2023 Annual Report). Our
project has already converted 13.2 miles of these priority fences,
which have a permeability class 0.4, since our work in this area began
in 2021. Monitoring data from remote cameras demonstrated pronghorn
using modified fences, which likely increases their ability to move and
find resources to fulfill the lifecycle requirements both daily and
seasonally.
The Right Bill Right Now
Many years of conversations and effort has gone into identifying
achievable, bipartisan legislative solutions to address the need to
maintain wildlife movements and conserve key migratory habitat. This
bill is the result of those conversations, projects and lessons
learned. There are many other legislative ideas that would benefit
wildlife movements, such as providing more resources to tribes, or to
private landowners, or providing a strategic framework for prioritizing
projects and funding. However, the Wildlife Movement Through
Partnerships Act is the right bill right now. We are proud to support a
bill that is broadly supported and one that we know will positively
benefit wildlife across the US. Congress will be doing future
generations a great service by acting now to support scientists and
conservationists in their effort to keep our remaining migrations
going, and our wildlife populations able to access the resources and
lands they need. We encourage the Committee to move this bill to the
House floor as soon as possible.
H.R. 6352 (Rep. Moore of UT), ``Tax Stamp Revenue Transfer for Wildlife
and Recreation Act''
For more than 80 years sportsmen and women have funded conservation
through their purchases. We applaud Representatives Moore and Golden
for their bill that will build upon this tradition and commit
additional resources to restoring wildlife habitat and supporting
state-level professional wildlife management. NWF agrees with the
primary premise of this bill that taxes on suppressors should mostly be
reinvested in conservation through the Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in
Wildlife Restoration Act, similar to taxes on many other hunting and
shooting products. Dedicated funding through user-pay mechanisms
(excise taxes, license fees, etc.) and strong collaboration among state
agencies, federal agencies, conservation partners, and landowners, has
successfully recovered the vast majority of wildlife species that are
hunted and fished. We also agree that is appropriate to commit some of
the tax on suppressors to processing applications for suppressors, and
some of the tax to supporting shooting ranges and hunter education.
H.R. 8632 (Rep. Grothman), ``Biodiversity Oversight Scaled-back And
Fully Erased Act of 2024'' or ``BIOSAFE Act of 2024''
Congress has directed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
``ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental
health of the [National Wildlife Refuge] System are maintained for the
benefit of present and future generations of Americans'' in the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. (16 U.S.C.
668dd(a)(4)(B)). The Service has proposed how will continue to fulfill
that requirement in a draft rule. (Biological Integrity, Diversity, and
Environmental Health'' (89 Fed. Reg. 7345; published February 2, 2024).
It will be an improvement, over the status quo, for the Service to lay
out how they will meet this requirement in regulations that are written
with a full opportunity for public input and oversight. This is
compared to the Service continuing to implement this part of law
without the benefit of direct public input and awareness.
Service leadership and staff extended the comment period on this
proposed rule when they heard concerns about it, and Service staff have
acknowledged they do not think they got this proposed rule right in
their draft. We agree with them. For example, we do not think the
Service was clear enough on the important of Cooperative Farming
Agreements play in the management of some refuges. However, we feel
they did propose some regulations that are important and beneficial.
Furthermore, much of what the Service has proposed reflects work and
activities Refuge managers have been implementing for some period of
time. The Service's process is consistent with how the notice and
comment process for developing rules works. The Service will take steps
to respond to all of the public input they have received and we
encourage Congress to give them and the public that opportunity.
Some of the proposed rules are cost-saving measures that will save
the Service from expending some of their extremely limited human and
financial resources. The National Wildlife Refuge System is one of the
world's largest networks of lands and waters dedicated to the
conservation of fish and wildlife. In addition to providing valuable
habitat, these public lands also offer first-class outdoor recreation
opportunities. Despite this, the Refuge System continues to be one of
the most underfunded federal entities. Chronic underfunding has led to
the National Wildlife Refuge System losing more than 800 or 16% of its
full time staff since Fiscal Year 2010. Simultaneously visitation has
grown by more than 37% or more than 67 million visitors a year, and the
acreage of lands and waters managed by the Service has grown
significantly. The current situation is truly unsustainable. While the
Administration continues to work on this proposed rule, we hope this
Congress work together to commit more funds to our nation's refuge
system.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to your
questions.
______
Mr. Bentz. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Schmitz for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF TAYLOR SCHMITZ, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS,
CONGRESSIONAL SPORTSMEN'S FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Schmitz. Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and
members of the Subcommittee, my name is Taylor Schmitz, and I
serve as the Director of Federal Relations for the
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, CSF. Thank you for the
opportunity to speak in support of three bills being considered
today: the Tax Revenue Transfer for Wildlife and Recreation
Act; the Wildlife Movement Through Partnerships Act; and the
BIOSAFE Act.
At the turn of the 20th century, numerous species of
wildlife were experiencing significant declines due to the loss
of habitat, unregulated and commercial harvests, and the
overall perception of an endless bounty. Alarmed, sportsmen and
women banded together to call for the establishment of state
fish and wildlife agencies, regulations, and other actions to
conserve wildlife and their associated habitats. Despite these
actions, wildlife lacked sufficient funding to turn the corner
on recovery and ultimately conservation.
In 1937, at the urging of sportsmen and women, along with
leaders from the firearm and ammunition industries, Congress
passed what is commonly known as the Pittman-Robertson Act. In
its simplest form, the Pittman-Robertson Act redirects existing
manufacturer-level excise taxes on firearms, ammunition, and
archery equipment to fund on-the-ground, state-based
conservation and access projects.
Today, sportsmen and women are asking Congress to build
upon the unmatched success of the Pittman-Robertson Act by
expanding its funding sources through the existing Form 4 tax
stamp money that is required to purchase a firearm suppressor.
The bipartisan Tax Stamp Revenue Transfer for Wildlife and
Recreation Act will repurpose the $200 tax stamp money, and
send the bulk of this funding to the Pittman-Robertson account.
Estimates indicate that tax stamp revenue generated through
the purchase of firearms suppressors could result in a $150 to
$170 million annual plus-up to the Pittman-Robertson account.
This plus-up will bolster critically important Pittman-
Robertson programs such as state wildlife research and
conservation, habitat conservation, hunter recruitment, target
shooting, range construction, among others.
H.R. 8836, the Wildlife Movement Through Partnerships Act,
represents a monumental step forward in our efforts to conserve
habitat connectivity for our nation's wildlife. Human
development across the country is not without consequences,
particularly when done blithely towards our wildlife resources.
Land that is lost or fragmented can become barriers to animal
movement, and becomes especially problematic to many species of
wildlife that must migrate to meet the demands of their annual
life cycle.
As an example of migration, a mule deer herd may spend most
of their summer range at higher elevations to escape heat, seek
nutritional browse, and raise offspring. As winter begins to
set in and weather conditions change, the same mule deer herd
will migrate down, generally along the same route used to reach
their summer range, to lower elevations to seek sustainable
food resources and more suitable weather. This migration might
extend over 150 miles in one single direction. During this
migration the mule deer herd in this example will spend time on
Forest Service land, BLM land, state land, and private land.
Fragmentation or barriers can occur anywhere. Recognizing
this, Federal and state agencies cannot work in silos, and they
must fully acknowledge and work respectfully with private
landowners if we are to be successful in conserving landscape
connectivity.
CSF strongly supports this bill for several reasons.
First, it solidifies a very successful Secretarial Order
3362, which now spans two different administrations.
Second, this legislation respects and upholds state and
tribal wildlife management authority.
Third, it respects the rights of private landowners while
providing these important stakeholders with voluntary options
to expand the conservation resources at their disposal. CSF
firmly believes that for conservation to work at scale, private
landowners must be able to envision themselves as a highly
valued partner in the program, and the best way to achieve that
is through locally-driven, non-regulatory, and voluntary
conservation approaches.
Fourth, funding that currently supports recent wildlife
movement efforts is provided through limited existing
programmatic funding. Without a legislatively authorized
wildlife movement to lean on, the contribution of these funds
and the overall continuance of the bipartisan H.R. 3362 is
uncertain.
Thanks to the carefully crafted language throughout the
bill, this legislation does not diminish or modify state and
tribal wildlife management authority, impact private property
rights or privacy, nor does it allow for any Federal land or
Federal migration corridor designation.
CSF also supports the BIOSAFE Act, which would require the
Fish and Wildlife Service to withdraw the proposed rule
commonly known as BIDEH.
In closing, we thank the Subcommittee again for holding a
hearing on these three important bills. I look forward to
answering any questions you may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schmitz follows:]
Prepared Statement of Taylor Schmitz, Director, Federal Relations,
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation
on H.R. 6352, H.R. 8632, and H.R. 8836
Chairman Bentz, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the
Subcommittee, my name is Taylor Schmitz, and I serve as the Director of
Federal Relations for the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation (CSF).
First, I would like to thank the Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members
of the Subcommittee for holding a hearing on three important bills for
sportsmen and women and importantly, wildlife conservation.
H.R. 6352, the Tax Stamp Revenue Transfer for Wildlife and Recreation
Act
Before speaking to H.R. 6352, the bipartisan Tax Stamp Revenue
Transfer for Wildlife and Recreation Act, it is important to provide
historical perspective. The idea of conservation in the United States
began with hunters, anglers, and other members of the sporting-
conservation community. At the turn of 20th century, America's wildlife
were on the brink due to habitat loss, commercial harvest, and other
conservation challenges. In the early 1900s, there were an estimated
300,000 white-tailed deer, 41,000 elk, 12,000 pronghorn antelope,
30,000 wild turkeys, and many waterfowl species were severely
struggling. As a result, sportsmen and women banded together to call
for the establishment of state fish and wildlife agencies, hunting and
fishing licenses, and milestone federal conservation legislation such
as the Lacey Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Despite these
advancements in conservation, America's wildlife lacked sufficient
funding to turn the corner on recovery and conservation.
Recognizing the shortfall in funding, in the 1930s, sportsmen and
women, along with leaders from the firearm and ammunition industries,
called on Congress to redirect an already in place manufacturer level
excise tax on firearms and ammunition (later amended to include archery
equipment) for the purposes of funding conservation and public access.
In 1937, Congress passed the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act,
or more commonly known as the Pittman-Robertson Act, which provides
critical conservation dollars to state wildlife agencies for on-the-
ground conservation and access projects. Fast forward to today, thanks
in large part to the funding provided by the Pittman-Robertson Act,
there are now over 30 million white-tailed deer, more than 1 million
elk and pronghorn, and over 7 million wild turkeys. In recent years,
state-based funding through the Pittman-Robertson Act has regularly
exceeded $1 billion/year, including $1.12 billion in Fiscal Year 2022,
$1.2 billion in Fiscal Year 2023, and $989 million in Fiscal Year 2024.
Today, sportsmen and women are asking Congress to build upon the
unmatched success of the Pittman-Robertson Act by expanding its funding
sources through the existing Form-4 tax stamp money that is required
when purchasing a firearm suppressor--money that currently goes to the
general treasury with no specific purpose.
Firearm suppressors are increasingly becoming a highly popular tool
for America's hunters and recreational shooters given their role as the
hearing protection of 21st century sportsmen and women. Despite common
myths and misconceptions, suppressors do not silence host firearms.
Suppressors simply reduce the sound of a gunshot to hearing safe
levels. Engineered to reduce the sound signature of a gunshot, minimize
felt recoil, and increase accuracy, suppressors are quickly becoming
the favored accessory of hunters and recreational shooters nationwide.
Suppressors work by trapping the rapidly expanding gases at the
muzzle of a firearm, allowing them to cool more slowly, in a similar
fashion to car mufflers.
Noise-induced hearing loss and tinnitus are two of the most common
afflictions for recreational shooters and hunters in the United States.
By decreasing the noise of a gunshot to hearing-safe levels,
suppressors help to conserve the hearing of sportsmen and women, and
their hunting dogs. In addition to hearing protection, suppressors also
mitigate noise complaints from those who live near shooting ranges and
hunting lands.
Suppressors are federally regulated under the National Firearms Act
(NFA) of 1934, the same act that regulates machine guns and short-
barreled rifles, among other items. These items, including suppressors,
which fall under the purview of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), carry severe penalties for criminal
use. To purchase a suppressor, an individual must find a licensed
dealer, send the appropriate paperwork to the ATF along with a one-time
$200 Form-4 tax stamp per suppressor, undergo an extensive FBI
background check, and complete a National Instant Criminal Background
Check at the point of purchase--the same federal background check
required to purchase a firearm.
H.R. 6352, led by Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus (CSC) Member
Rep. Blake Moore and CSC Vice Chair Rep. Jared Golden, will repurpose
the $200 ATF Form-4 tax stamp money and send 85% ($170) of this money
to the Pittman-Robertson Act to bolster state level conservation,
hunter recruitment efforts, and to increase access opportunities for
America's sportsmen and women and the public at large. The allocation
to the Pittman-Robertson Act would be further broken down with 85%
($144.5) of the funding being apportioned to conservation and hunter
recruitment programs. The remaining 15% ($25.5) of the Pittman-
Robertson allocation would be apportioned to build, maintain, and
renovate recreational target shooting ranges. It is expected that Form-
4 tax stamp revenue generated through the purchase of suppressors will
approach $170 to $200 million 2024, which would equate to nearly a
$150-$170 million plus up to the Pittman-Robertson account for
conservation and access. The remaining 15% ($30) of the Form-4 tax
stamp would be allocated to the ATF to process firearm suppressor
applications. This legislation also requires that suppressor
applications be approved within a 90-day timeline, unless the applicant
is barred by law from processing a suppressor.
The Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation is strongly supportive of
H.R. 6352 given the benefits this bill will have for the Pittman-
Robertson Act and on-the-ground conservation and access funding.
H.R. 8836, the Wildlife Movement Through Partnerships Act
H.R. 8836, the Wildlife Movement Through Partnerships Act, led by
CSC member Rep. Zinke and Rep. Beyer, represents a critical step
forward in our efforts to conserving and restoring habitat connectivity
for our nation's wildlife, and CSF is proud to support this
legislation.
Across the nation, landscape connectivity and the habitat that is
necessary to sustain a wide diversity of wildlife with ecologically
sustainable populations continues to change at an expeditious pace due
to a multitude of factors. For instance, anthropogenic modifications
such as commercial and residential development, energy development
(renewable and non-renewable), and highway and railway construction or
expansion across the United States continues to advance at a rapid
rate, which leads to the loss and fragmentation of wildlife habitat.
There are many other conservation challenges that we must address,
including overall habitat degradation caused by numerous factors.
In the American west, many species of wildlife such as elk, mule
deer, pronghorn, and others are highly migratory to meet the demands of
their annual life cycle. As an example, a mule deer herd may spend most
of the summer at higher elevations, such as within U.S. Forest Service
(USFS) managed land, to escape summer heat, seek nutritional browse,
and raise offspring. As winter begins to set in and weather conditions
change, the same mule deer herd will migrate down to lower elevations
to seek sustainable food resources and more suitable weather. Along
their movement path, this mule deer herd may traverse numerous land
ownerships ranging from Forest Service land, Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), state and tribal lands, and private lands. It is clear that
federal and state agencies cannot work in silos, and they must full
acknowledge and work respectfully with private landowners, if we are to
be successful in conserving landscape connectivity there is any hope to
sustain meaningful landscape connectivity and habitat productivity.
As a real-life example, Figure 1 below shows the landowner makeup
of one of the nation's longest known mule deer migration along the
famed Red Desert to Hoback migration corridor a migration that exceeds
150 miles in one direction. In Figure 1, Bureau of Land Management
lands (BLM) is represented by yellow, green represents USFS, state land
is represented by blue and orange, and white represents private land
ownership. During this migration, the mule deer herd spends
approximately 17% of its time on USFS lands, 45% on BLM land, 9% on
state land, and 29% on private land. While Figure 1 is focused on the
incredible Red Desert to Hoback migration, this figure demonstrates the
broader point that the buy-in of private owners is crucial to
conserving wildlife movement, seasonal habitats, and ensuring the
functionality of whole corridors.
Figure 1: Red Desert to Hoback Migration Corridor Land Ownership
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
While the aforementioned species are on one end of the
migration spectrum, there are countless other species who have movement
or migration requirements that are smaller in scale, but equally as
important to maintaining robust populations of these species. For
example, roads and highways often pose a significant threat to turtles.
The Minnesota Zoo, in conjunction with the Minnesota Department of
Transportation, is currently testing fencing as an option to divert
turtles from roads and into safe under-road culverts. According to the
University of Minnesota, the Twin Cities region has found that turtle
deaths dropped by 60 to 80% after fencing was installed.
CSF strongly supports locally-driven and non-regulatory efforts to
restore habitat connectivity with the goal of bolstering wildlife
populations such as efforts like the Department of the Interior (DOI)
Secretarial Order 3362 (S.O. 3362), which was launched to improve
habitat quality in western big-game winter range and migration
corridors for elk, mule deer, and pronghorn across 11 Western states
(AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NV, NM, OR, UT, WA, and WY). Despite elk, mule
deer, and pronghorn being explicitly listed as the three species of
focus, it is important to note that efforts to conserve winter range
and corridors for these species under S.O. 3362 benefits a wide array
of other species who share the same habitat or utilize these focus
species for food resources.
Signed in February 2018 by then Secretary of the Interior Zinke,
S.O. 3362 was a significant step forward for corridor and connectivity
conservation for several reasons. The Secretarial Order initially
supported scientific research by state fish and wildlife agencies that
vastly enlightened understanding of big game movement patterns, greatly
expanded corridor mapping efforts by the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) led Corridor Mapping Team, and facilitated voluntary
habitat conservation activities occurring on private, tribal, state,
and federal lands. Secretarial Order 3362 is driven by partnerships--
particularly federal and state wildlife managers. Specifically, S.O.
3362 focused on working respectively with state wildlife agencies, who
are responsible for the management of elk, deer, and pronghorn, while
leveraging the network of federal lands managed by DOI such as the
Bureau of Land Management, which manages more than 245 million acres of
public land and is the largest manager of public lands in the country.
Engaging tribes and supporting their personnel and habitat needs is
also a component of S.O. 3362 implementation. Through S.O. 3362, the
relevant DOI agencies are generally working together toward a common
purpose and DOI and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) are
collaborating and supporting each other in their respective corridor
and seasonal habitat conservation activities.
USDA has also expanded its efforts to address habitat fragmentation
and corridors through the USDA Migratory Big Game Initiative, a program
that seeks to leverage USDA's work with private landowners to improve
habitat connectivity for wildlife. While progress is being made, the
scope of this effort is currently limited to three western states
(Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming).
Despite the actions by DOI and USDA, efforts to restore habitat
connectivity are limited for a number of reasons. Namely, the limited
amount of funding that currently supports the effort is supplied from
existing programmatic funding. Without a stand-alone corridor program
to lean on, the contribution of these funds is uncertain. The
implementation of USDA migration corridors efforts seems partially
limited due to staffing constraints, in particular staff at the field
level. At the hidden level is the reality that this entire conservation
effort is at risk at any time because it does not have an authorized
program with an annual budget and assigned staff.
CSF notes that as Administration's change every four to eight
years, priorities (i.e. Secretarial Orders) change and efforts that are
initiated in one Administration may be discontinued in another.
Secretarial Order 3362 is a rare example of a priority established
under one political party and being continued by a different political
party after an Administration change. This is due in large part to how
S.O.3362 was crafted and the way it is implemented. Similarly important
is the fact that corridor and wildlife movement conservation is truly a
bipartisan issue. The foundation now laid is ready for the raising of a
strong and resistant structure, which H.R. 8836 is positioned to
provide.
CSF strongly supports H.R. 8836 for several reasons, but
importantly it codifies an existing bipartisan conservation effort, and
it checks two critical boxes when it comes to implementing and
delivering on-the-ground conservation from our perspective. First, this
legislation respects and upholds state wildlife management authority.
And secondly, it respects the rights of private landowners while
providing these important stakeholders with voluntary options to expand
the conservation resources at their disposal. CSF firmly believes that
for conservation to work at scale, private landowners must be able to
envision themselves in the program, and the best way to achieve that is
through voluntary, non-regulatory, and locally driven approaches. H.R.
8836 recognizes these important considerations and seeks to address the
challenge of habitat fragmentation and its impact through five
distinct, but equally important ways.
First, Section 4 of H.R. 8836 establishes a non-regulatory program
known as the ``Wildlife Movement and Movement Area Grant Program'' The
purpose of Section 4 is to establish a grant program, which will be
administered by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), to
provide funding that is crucial to the success of conserving wildlife
movement areas. Given their unmatched experience and expertise in
delivering grants that facilitate on-the-ground, locally driven
conservation projects, CSF believes that NFWF is well-positioned to
administer the grant program established in Section 4. The Wildlife
Movement and Movement Area Grant Program will provide funding to states
and tribal agencies, non-profit organizations, higher education
institutions, counties, and federal agencies that support the purpose
of this legislation. Further, this section requires that any proposal
submitted under this grant program be accompanied by a letter for
support from the respective state or tribal fish and wildlife agency.
This section will facilitate a competitive, transparent and accountable
process to distribute grant funding to a host of eligible partners.
Section 5 authorizes much needed scientific research funding that
will be provided directly to state fish and wildlife agencies and
tribes through an agreed upon process with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) Science Applications program. This approach has proven
effective during the first two years of S.O.3362 implementation. The
Science Applications program provided research project funding support,
but those funds evaporated after year two of implementation. The
funding in the first two years supported over 40 state-led research
projects that allowed scientists and land managers to develop critical
understanding of little studied deer, elk, and pronghorn herds across
the west. Among many highlights, the research findings shed light on
interstate movements of pronghorn, local jurisdictions considering
scientific data and how they continue city growth without impacting the
needs of migrating mule deer, and where to place highway crossing
structures based on actual wildlife movement data. Reinitiating
research funding through this section will allow states and tribes to
learn more about wildlife movement over a broader range of species,
while also allowing limited habitat and transportation infrastructure
funding to be used most effectively.
Section 6 takes two primary actions focused on the USFWS Partners
for Fish and Wildlife program (Partners). One, it reauthorizes this
very successful and widely supported private and tribal lands program
from 2025 through 2030. Two, it provides authority for the program to
provide technical assistance to other federal agencies. The field staff
in the Partners program are well known for their tremendous working
relationships with private landowners and they bring important social
science skills and habitat conservation techniques to the table. This
will be particularly important to the USDA migration initiative efforts
and to various tribes across the country.
Section 7 and Section 8 are related as they primarily focus on the
activities of USGS. Section 7 directs the USGS to support the
continuation of the very successful Corridor Mapping Team. This team is
the result of S.O.3362 and was organized by the USGS, but Team members
consist of state, tribal, federal, and university spatial planning
experts. Collectively, they support each other with technical
assistance, training, and other activities that facilitate science-
grounded data analysis and mapping. Section 8 focuses on corridor
mapping efforts in general and the protection of sensitive data. With
the leadership of USGS and efforts of the Corridor Mapping Team, since
2018 over 200 migration corridors or movement routes are now mapped.
These mapped corridors are shared to the public in sequential volumes
(4 produced thus far) titled, Ungulate Migrations of the Western U.S.
Lastly, CSF would also like to highlight the thoughtfully crafted
and important Savings Provision contained in Section 10 of H.R. 8836.
While CSF appreciates and strongly supports Section 10 in its entirety,
we feel it important that this legislation does not enlarge, diminish,
or modify state and tribal wildlife management authority, impact
private property rights and privacy, nor does it allow for any federal
land or federal migration corridor designation.
Again, CSF is proud to support this vital legislation, and we are
excited to see a thoughtful and locally driven approach to the
ecologically critical topic of wildlife migration and movement and
overall landscape connectivity. Advancing this legislation will not
only support wildlife, but also, sportsmen and women, state and federal
agencies, tribes, and interested private landowners.
H.R. 8632, the Biodiversity Oversight Scaled-back and Fully Erased
(BIOSAFE) Act
H.R. 8632, the BIOSAFE Act led by CSC Member Rep. Grothman, would
require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to withdrawal the
proposed rule titled ``National Wildlife Refuge System; Biological
Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health (BIDEH) (89 Fed. Reg.
7345; published February 2, 2024).
On February 2 of this year, FWS published the proposed BIDEH rule
and policy updates with an inadequate comment period of 30 days. At the
time, CSF and 36 of our partner organizations sent a letter to FWS
requesting the comment period be extended by 60 days for a total
comment period of 90 days. CSF would like to thank FWS for delivering
on this request and providing the time that was necessary to thoroughly
review and examine the BIDEH proposal.
However, the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation has significant
concerns regarding the BIDEH proposed rule and policy updates put
forward by FWS. CSF believes the updates contained in BIDEH represent a
substantial and consequential change in the direction of the management
of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS).
It is important to note that the National Wildlife Refuge System is
a unique public lands management system. Unlike other systems of public
lands, the NWRS is different in that fish, wildlife, and conservation
are the primary purpose. The National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act (as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act), the organic act of the NWRS, states at the outset of
the Act ``The mission of the System 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
their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and
future generations of Americans.'' Unlike many other systems of public
lands, such as National Parks, fish, wildlife, and conservation come
first within the NWRS. The NWRS Administration Act also establishes
that the purpose of individual refuges shall take precedent over the
mission of the System if conflict arises, which clearly indicates the
NWRS should be managed in a bottom-up approach as opposed to a top-
down, all-encompassing approach. Unfortunately, the BIDEH proposal
appears to flip this equation and acquiesces to the overall mission of
the NWRS rather than recognizing the need to support the purpose of
each unique NWRS unit, which would be in direct conflict with the
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act as amended by the
Improvement Act.
The BIDEH proposal states that the overarching objective as
identified in the proposal is to address climate change and
anthropogenic changes. While CSF prioritizes and fully supports efforts
to address conservation challenges such as changing climate conditions
and anthropogenic changes, we believe the actions contained in the
BIDEH proposal will do little to tackle these challenges. CSF is
concerned that BIDEH appears to establish a ``guilty until proven
innocent'' standard for many longstanding conservation practices within
the National Wildlife Refuge System.
More specifically, CSF questions how prohibiting agriculture,
predator management, the use of genetically modified organisms,
pesticides, among other prohibitions will help position the NWRS to
better address climate change and anthropogenic changes. FWS has stated
that active management such as cooperative agriculture is an important
tool to addressing climate change. For example, in 2020, FWS stated in
a Southeastern Programmatic Assessment that ``Loss of physical wetland
area and degradation due to exotic species expansions resulting from
climate changes will likely require increased management intensity,
such as agricultural production, on the remaining refuges to meet the
needs of wildlife at their current levels''. This 2020 assessment leads
CSF to raise the question of what has happened since 2020 that results
in FWS changing course and establishing a ``guilty until proven
innocent'' standard for cooperative agriculture.
CSF also believes that it is important to recognize and understand
how BIDEH further hamstrings the already limited funding that the NWRS
receives. Unfortunately, funding has not kept pace with the needs and
demands of the NWRS. Being mindful of the limited funding, CSF
struggles to understand how creating more hurdles and complicated
processes for refuge staff, who already struggle daily to conduct the
necessary habitat management will improve the conservation of National
Wildlife Refuges. Recognizing these funding shortfalls, CSF believes
that it is important for the NWRS to actively seek opportunities that
have the most significant return on investment and can leverage non-
profits, private individuals, and others to bolster the health of the
NWRS rather than limiting tools and resources and creating angst and
concern with many of the users who have historically supported National
Wildlife Refuges both financially and through voluntary labor.
Summary
The Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation again thanks the
Subcommittee for holding a hearing on these three bills. We look
forward to working with the Subcommittee as well as the full Committee
to see these pieces of legislation enacted into law.
______
Mr. Bentz. Thank you. I thank the witnesses for their
testimony and will now recognize Members for 5 minutes each for
questions.
Mr. Graves, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Deputy Director Guertin, it is good to see you again. I am
not sure who is sacrificing you or for what purpose today, but
good to have you back in the Committee again.
He often shows up as a sacrificial lamb for the Department.
Actually, Mr. Cochran, I want to thank you for being here
and appreciate your testimony, and appreciate your independence
in your thoughts today. I want to ask you a couple of
questions.
No. 1, you have spent a lot of time working on
environmental issues and working in coastal Louisiana, but you
made mention in your testimony of other large-scale ecological
restoration efforts like Everglades, Chesapeake Bay, and Great
Lakes. Could you reflect and share perhaps your opinion on kind
of looking at the ecological significance of coastal Louisiana
and the urgency that we are facing there compared to some of
these other areas and projects, and if you think that this
effort for restoration of Louisiana is deserving of a
comprehensive effort and some type of urgency in the effort
here?
Mr. Cochran. Well, it won't surprise you that, yes, I do
think it is critical for us to do that.
One of the special things about the Gulf Coast,
particularly around the Mississippi Delta, is that there is a
phrase that was used years ago in a book about habitat called
``the seams of nature,'' where the fresh water and salt water
come together to create these estuaries, and they are magical
for life in terms of the ability to sustain habitat,
particularly for fisheries.
One of the fun things about Louisiana if you like to fish,
is that you can literally go out and catch a freshwater bass
and a saltwater redfish on the same day in the same area, and
that speaks to the sort of uniqueness of the area from a
habitat perspective. That is not only valuable to Louisiana.
Congressman, I am not quite sure how to compare and
contrast the other areas around the country that----
Mr. Graves. You can just say we are better.
Mr. Cochran. What is that?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Graves. I said you can just say we are better.
Mr. Cochran. That is right. But it is a magical part of the
world that is in grave danger, and I think it is a great time
to be focusing on it now that we have some resources and have
begun to restore what we are losing down there.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Cochran. I have often used the
comparison of the 2,000 square miles, we cite that figure and a
lot of times people don't really understand the scale. And as
you well know, 2,000 square miles would mean that Rhode Island
would no longer exist as a state, the land area in Delaware
would no longer exist. This is a massive, massive swath of land
and, as we have both noted, both in your testimony and in my
introduction, the significance not just to the region but to
the nation.
Another project that is really fundamental to establishing
some type of sustainable footprint in coastal Louisiana is a
project that has a long history in the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the State Coastal Protection Restoration
Authority. Previously known as Myrtle Grove, it is now known as
Mid-Barataria, and I believe you are intimately familiar with
that project and also aware that there were, in that case, some
regulatory waivers that were provided in order to allow the
project to move forward. And I believe your previous employer
supported that because of a recognition of urgency, recognition
that the regulatory process really didn't fit that type of
project.
I understand your concern, I don't know what word you use,
I will use concern, with some of the regulatory provisions, but
I do want to ask. Do you recognize that there is an urgency
here, and that perhaps the regular regulatory process doesn't
really fit the urgency that we are facing in the state?
Mr. Cochran. I don't have any problem recognizing it, I
have seen it. What takes a lot of time is us sitting down to
actually figure out how to make it work, and that is
frustrating as hell.
There is no reason that we can't sit down with concerns in
both directions and figure out how to make these processes
work. We will lose. We will lose this fight between enhanced
nature that we have and climate change and the land that we
live on if we don't figure out how to make these things move
faster.
We cannot sacrifice community engagement. You referred to a
change that was made, a waiver that was granted under the
Marine Mammals Protection Act. And if you look at that
language, what you find is it did not try to ignore impacts
that might happen. In fact, it is required of the state to
actually capture the information on that, to know what is going
on, to continue to provide the information that is necessary so
that we can adaptively manage for an outcome rather than just
say in black and white, ``We are just going to exempt this.''
There was money required and put forward to actually do the
supportive work that is necessary in order to be able to do
that.
So, I am not holding on to that as the model. I am saying
there are ways to think about how not to give away the
protections that are necessary, but how to get these things
done in a time that actually honors the urgency that we have
here.
Mr. Graves. Well, speaking of time, we are out.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Graves. Mr. Cochran, thank you very much. I appreciate
you being here, appreciate your testimony.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you.
Ranking Member Huffman, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cochran, picking up where you left off, I want to thank
you for your testimony, and I want to thank you for being
friends with Garret Graves. I know from personal experience
that is not always easy.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Huffman. But I very much appreciate your testimony. You
are nominally a Republican witness, and we don't have too many
Republican witnesses that come in here and acknowledge the
elephant in the room, the climate crisis; that acknowledge the
mismanagement of fossil fuel development historically; and that
talk about the importance of an efficient but meaningful
environmental review process so that we can stop bad projects
and make other projects better. I just find it incredibly
refreshing.
And now that you are retired, I wish you were the
Republican witness tomorrow, where this Committee will be
considering a whole bunch of ill-advised legislation to gut
NEPA as one of our bedrock environmental laws. But they
probably don't have you on the agenda. I am grateful we have
you here today.
And let me just ask. We have covered, I think, the urgency
of these restoration projects for the Gulf Coast, and I really
do hope we can find a way to move these projects faster. But is
a sweeping, categorical exclusion necessary, do you think, for
this grant program? Can we find a better way to advance these
projects without something as broad as a full categorical
exclusion that could include things like levees and other
projects that really do need to have some meaningful review?
Mr. Cochran. I think my experience is that whenever you
have a broad category, you end up drawing opposition. And what
is most important is to focus on what will actually solve the
problem. And in this case, one issue that always comes up, and
it is almost never talked about, is whether or not there is
sufficient staff available in the agencies that have to do the
reviews to actually do the work in a meaningful way. Is there a
way to make sure that we are doing not sequential reviews when
there are multiple agencies involved, but actually do them at
the same time?
Mr. Huffman. Do it better.
Mr. Cochran. Right. Some of that progress has been made
under the dashboard that was put forward under Obama and
carried forward under Trump. That is actually not Republican
and Democrat if you want to talk about those. I think there are
absolutely ways to address some of these things and think about
them.
But a category exclusion ends up bringing an awful lot of
debate that ends up stopping conversation rather than make it
move forward. That has been my experience.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Mr. Schmitz, just talking about Mr. Moore's legislation, it
is a good idea, I think, to redirect these revenues back into
the Pittman-Robertson Act. They shouldn't just go to the
general treasury. We can have broad agreement on that.
But this 90-day automatic approval of permit applications
for the manufacture or sale of silencers, don't you think that
this bill would be much more bipartisan if it wasn't in there?
And would you support it if it was not in there?
Mr. Schmitz. Congressman, thank you for that question.
I do think it is important to make it clear that before the
actual transfer of a suppressor can occur to the individual
purchaser after ATF approves it, it will still go through an
additional background check. Additionally, before that transfer
occurs, local law enforcement is made aware of any individual
who receives a suppressor.
To answer your second question, yes, the Congressional
Sportsmen's Foundation feels the 90-day timeline is important.
Under current statute, under the----
Mr. Huffman. Would you support the bill without it, though?
Mr. Schmitz. Congressman, we feel it is important to
include that.
Mr. Huffman. But would you support the bill without it?
Mr. Schmitz. We feel it is important to keep that piece----
Mr. Huffman. We are going around and around. All right.
Moving on, Mr. Guertin, I want to come back to the BIDEH
rule. You have said many of these things before and my hope
would be maybe, if you said it one more time, some people might
hear it and listen to it. But does the proposed rule affect
hunting or fishing in the refuge system at all?
Mr. Guertin. No, Congressman, it would not.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you. Does Fish and Wildlife anticipate
any changes to the Cooperative Agriculture or Water Rights
program if the proposed rule is finalized in its current form?
Mr. Guertin. If it was finalized in its current form? No,
sir. It would continue those programs.
Mr. Huffman. And once finalized, will this rule give Fish
and Wildlife Service any authority to ignore the role of states
in managing wildlife populations?
Mr. Guertin. No, sir.
Mr. Huffman. All right. Does this rule, however, help the
Fish and Wildlife Service carry out the directive that Congress
gave you in 1997, when it passed the Refuge Improvement Act
telling you to make sure to ensure the biological integrity,
diversity, and environmental health of the refuge system?
Mr. Guertin. Yes, sir. We believe it would give us a
stronger framework going forward. It would empower our refuge
managers to make sound, science-based decisions, and give them
a lot of flexibility to deliver the mission out there.
Mr. Huffman. All right. Very good.
Thanks, I yield back.
Mr. Bentz. Chair Westerman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Bentz, and thank you to
the witnesses today.
Mr. Schmitz, in your testimony you mentioned that CFS
strongly supports the Zinke legislation on corridors because it
respects state and tribal wildlife management authority and
private landowners. Can you speak to the importance of these
protections in more detail?
Mr. Schmitz. Congressman, thank you for that important
question.
On the state side of that question, state wildlife agencies
are the primary managers of wildlife in the country. They are
the ones that have the boots on the ground. They know the local
conservation challenges, and they are able to tailor
conservation measures accordingly.
On the private landowners piece, as you know, private
landowners are some of the best conservationists in this
country. We feel that any piece of legislation that tries to
deliver conservation on the ground needs to respect private
landowners in a voluntary, non-regulatory manner.
We feel very strongly that the savings language contained
in this bill, particularly in Section 10, makes it clear that
any conservation actions made available through this bill will
be done in a voluntary, non-regulatory manner. And we
appreciate Congressman Zinke and Congressman Beyer working very
closely to develop Section 10.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you. Also, Mr. Schmitz, Representative
Moore's Tax Stamp Revenue Transfer for Wildlife and Recreation
Act requires that a portion of the Pittman-Robertson Act
allocation be set aside specifically for the maintenance,
construction, and renovation of target shooting ranges.
Elaborate on why this set-aside is so important.
Mr. Schmitz. Congressman, that set-aside is important
because recreational shooting is one of the fastest-growing
sports across the country. And the reason is because all
individuals can enjoy it, regardless of age, income,
background.
Additionally, because of how fast recreational shooting is
growing across the country, it is critical to provide
additional access to opportunities for sportsmen and women. I
mentioned that recreational shooting can be enjoyed by folks
regardless of income, but if you don't have private property or
somewhere to shoot, you can be limited. So, we find it critical
to build public shooting ranges for individuals to go out and
safely practice recreational target shooting across the
country.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you.
Mr. Guertin, in April, when the Subcommittee held an
oversight hearing on the BIDEH proposal, Representative Graves
asked you if sportsmen's organizations were engaged in the
development of BIDEH, and you answered no. I have another
question. Did U.S. Fish and Wildlife consult with any animal
rights organizations when drafting the proposal, or did you
have input from other organizations when drafting the proposal?
Mr. Guertin. Thank you for your question, Mr. Chairman.
While we were drafting with the proposal, we only reached
with two entities, our colleagues in the state fish and game
agencies and folks in tribal fish and wildlife agencies. We did
not engage during the proposal process with any outside
entities, NGOs, advocacy groups, or others, sir.
Mr. Westerman. Do you realize that the Humane Society
issued a detailed press release less than an hour after the
proposal was made available to the public? Maybe they are just
on their game.
Mr. Guertin. I understand they did, sir. I can only
speculate some of these groups prepare several of these canned
announcements in advance. But I can assure you we did not do
any outreach to that group prior to releasing the proposed
rule.
Mr. Westerman. All right, thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Congressman
LaMalfa for 5 minutes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Deputy Director Guertin, I
am curious as to how closely are you monitoring the situation
on the Klamath River after the destruction of the four dams and
the amount of silt and effluent and all sorts of other things
that are going down the river and have destroyed the entire
fish and other wildlife population within the river and a lot
of the other wildlife next to the river that has been either
stuck in silt and muck and things like that?
And was this part of the plan, with the destruction of
those hydroelectric dams, that the river would be like this,
someone gave me a sample the other day in a water bottle that
looked like one of those green, healthy drinks, or something
like that. It was so full of stuff, just as a random sample as
well as the temperature readings, which are running from 68 to
72 degrees in that river. How is that ideal habitat for salmon
or any other fish?
And was this part of the thinking when your organization,
as well as others, were supporting the dam removal, that this
would do this to the river for who knows how many years?
Mr. Guertin. Thank you for your question, Congressman. I
have been following it weekly, getting some updates from our
counterparts out there at the operational level.
My understanding is this was built into the planning. It is
very common when some of these big control structures or dams
come out. There will be sediment and silt initially that gets
flushed out over time. And we are seeing in the long term
stronger response and stronger returns of many of the aquatic
species. Sometimes nature will take a little bit longer for
equilibrium out there, but it is something we are monitoring.
I get reports every week, but we are glad to keep you and
your staff more further updated if some additional details
would be helpful.
Mr. LaMalfa. If it is a 7- to 10-year timeline and the life
cycle of the salmon they are purportedly trying to save is 3
years, how are we not going to wipe out the entire run, the
entire cohort over a 7- to 10-year period?
Mr. Guertin. Sir, I am not an expert on the physiology of
the salmon and their return. But in very general terms,
sometimes these things take a few weeks to clear out, sometimes
a few months. I would be glad to track down some additional
specific updates for your office on that point.
Mr. LaMalfa. So, 20 million cubic yards of silt stretched
over at least 150 miles of river might just take a few weeks or
so, instead of the 7 to 10 years that is being rumored, which
nobody was talking about before this happened of, oh, it might
be 7 to 10 years or more.
Mr. Guertin. Sir, this was factored into the conversations
and the planning. Again, I am not a salmon or a river
restoration specialist. I would be glad to set up some
briefings. But these kinds of things are looked at when we
looked at the long-term restoration plan for those----
Mr. LaMalfa. Are the things looked at that affect the
people along the river, such as the water wells that people
have near there are now depleted, and that they are getting
water trucked in, and sometimes the water doesn't get trucked
into the homes?
One time a worker there had a 5-gallon bucket of water and
he gave it to a lady there, so that basically now you have
people living Third World along the river there with all the
sloughing and such. Is anything being done to mitigate that for
the people that have been living along there, as well as the
possible loss of their homes and things like that?
Mr. Guertin. Congressman, I am just not personally aware of
some of those circumstances. We will do what we can to help
those folks, and I would be glad to, after this hearing, follow
up and get you a more fulsome update of some of these impacts
to citizens out there.
Mr. LaMalfa. Mr. Spinrad from the NOAA, do you have any
comment on the questions I just asked in that regard?
Is this an acceptable loss of all the wildlife along the
river for the 7- to 10-year period that it would take to
perhaps flush this out?
Voice. Mr. Spinrad is not here.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. I got in late, sorry.
Well, why don't we have Mr. Leahy jump in on that question.
Mr. Leahy. Could you repeat the question, please?
Mr. LaMalfa. Is this an acceptable loss of all the wildlife
within the river, and much of it along the edges for the 7- to
10-year period in order to have this holy grail of the dam
removal succeed?
Mr. Leahy. I am not prepared to opine on that, but I do
think that we feel like the long-term benefits of this will be
really good.
Mr. LaMalfa. And to the people along there that no longer
have water for their homes because the water table has been
depleted.
Mr. Leahy. I don't personally have any knowledge of that, I
am sorry.
Mr. LaMalfa. A lot don't, do they? It is pretty convenient.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes Congressman Carl for 5
minutes.
Mr. Carl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank each one of
you gentlemen for joining us today. I know you have to
structure your schedule around us, and I apologize for being a
little bit late, but I just want to start off by saying that
Congressman Graves and I, we see eye to eye on the urgent need
for coastal registration, pardon me on that word, especially
given our shared work on the GOMESA funds and others to protect
the Gulf.
I want to thank you for the critical legislation that he
has put together. It is a big step forward in securing our
resources needed to preserve our coastal and protect our
industries and our communities that depend on it.
Given the urgencies of these issues and the national
significance of the Gulf wetlands, ports, and energy
production, this legislation presents a strategy approach to
boosting ongoing efforts. The proposed Federal grant program
from the National Marine Fisheries Services in the bill
advocates $500 million, highlighting the scale of the
investment required to protect these vital resources.
With that said, Mr. Cochran, $500 million is no small
figure. Given the many funding priorities facing our nation
today as we have been scrambling with this for months now, can
you help explain why this level of investment is critical for
the coastal restoration across the Gulf Coast?
Mr. Cochran. The testimony was to make clear that it is not
just about the people of Louisiana, although they are at great
risk, that it has to do with priorities for America having to
do with energy production and distribution, having to do with
fisheries and feeding people, having to do with our ability to
even stay in place along the bottom of the Mississippi River.
So, it is that serious. Sometimes from a distance it is
hard to know that. If you go to New Orleans and have a good
time and go home, you don't really see much of what is going on
around it. And, in fact, we are losing, as I said, somewhere
between 25 and 35 square miles every year to the Gulf of
Mexico. If we don't interrupt that, we need to start moving
about 2 million people from the coast of Louisiana. It is just
really not more complicated than that in terms of the big
picture. And if you think that is not a drain on the Federal
coffers, wait until we try to do that. It is serious to spend
money ahead of time, rather than to wait until we are reacting
to that.
Mr. Carl. I agree with you. What long-term benefits will
the bill provide for the region, and how might these outcomes
affect the broader national landscape?
Mr. Cochran. It is fundamental to the, let's say, farmers
of America. Let's start there. If we don't have the ability to
use the ports of south Louisiana to distribute the things that
we grow in this country and ship around the world, everybody
suffers as a result of that. Farm prices suffer. Food prices
suffer. People who make a living providing that for the world
suffer. And it is black and white. It is a very large export
center. That is why Thomas Jefferson wanted to own it in the
first place, so that we could have that access to the rest of
the world.
Chemical products, many of which are manufactured in
Louisiana, most of which are shipped out of that around the
world, all of those things involve both the economy of
Louisiana, but the economy of the nation and the process of
moving forward.
Energy distribution, most of the pipelines that literally
take oil and gas from offshore and run it to the rest of the
country run through wetlands. And they were built assuming land
would stay in place. As the land goes away, all of those
pipelines are at risk. So, the energy of America and the use of
energy across America under the traditional circumstances are
also directly at risk as a result of what we are facing down
there.
Mr. Carl. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield my time back.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Ms. Hageman for
5 minutes.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you, and thank the witnesses for being
here today.
Deputy Director Guertin, before I get into some of the
important bills in front of us today I would like to follow up
with you on our last conversation. You told me in July that by
the end of the month the Fish and Wildlife Service would
release its 12-month finding on the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem grizzly bear. And you also stated at that time, or
agreed with me at that time, that if we had the number of bears
in 1975 that we do today, which is about 1,100 head, they never
would have been listed in the first place, meaning that the
grizzly bear is in fact fully recovered.
However, not only did the Service fail to come through with
the release of its 12-month finding at the end of July, you
actually delayed any decision until January 2025. Director
Guertin, as I am sure you are aware, the Service is already in
violation of the law by a long shot, by a year and a half or
more, in fact, in terms of the amount of time under the
Endangered Species Act.
As you are sitting here today, the Fish and Wildlife
Service is violating the Endangered Species Act with regard to
the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly bear. It is unclear
to me what changed in the 2 weeks between the July hearing and
the announcement to postpone the 12-month finding to justify
such an action. What happened?
Mr. Guertin. Thank you for your question, Congresswoman.
When I provided the testimony on July 10, my goal is always
to provide the latest factual update information to members of
the Committee. The very next day, on July 11, we received a
notice of intent to sue from the state of Montana. So, over the
intervening 2 weeks, the decision was made by the Department
and the Service that we needed to address all three of the
pending cases for the DPS for Greater Yellowstone.
Ms. Hageman. But the notice of intent to sue was not for
the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.
Mr. Guertin. Agreed, but we have to do an analysis of the
DPS and the Lower 48----
Ms. Hageman. No, our 12-month review was ahead of that. You
have to follow the Endangered Species Act, and you were
required to issue a decision within 12 months after receiving
Wyoming's petition. Isn't that correct?
Mr. Guertin. That is the statutory requirement. Yes,
Congresswoman.
Ms. Hageman. And, in fact, Montana is not suing over the
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly bear.
Mr. Guertin. We filed a notice of intent for our failure to
meet the determination for the DPS in the Northern Continental
Divide Ecosystem.
Ms. Hageman. So, what do we do? Who goes to jail? Who is
fined at the Fish and Wildlife Service for violating the law?
Who gets held accountable for this? Do you? Who gets held
accountable?
Mr. Guertin. Our stance at this point, Congresswoman, is
that we are, and we have published a declaration given to the
court that is available on our website, we are linking the
three of these, and planning by January 31 to issue these
findings for the Northern Continental Divide, for the Greater
Yellowstone, and for the delisting that was petitioned for the
Lower 48.
Ms. Hageman. But that is not what the recovery plan
required.
Mr. Guertin. A recovery plan is a planning document. It is
a blueprint. It is an aspirational document.
Ms. Hageman. But you are agreeing that that is not what the
recovery plan required, aren't you?
Mr. Guertin. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Hageman. I would like to talk to you very briefly about
the BIDEH rule. It creates a default position for the National
Wildlife Refuge System by prohibiting certain practices unless
the refuge managers conduct a full-blown NEPA analysis. Refuge
managers would be required to complete an analysis to justify
utilizing existing management practices that are necessary to
meet statutory responsibilities and to maintain the health of
the environment.
Deputy Director Guertin, the Service states that the
intended goal of this rulemaking is to promote management
flexibility and empower refuge managers. How does prohibiting
important agricultural practices prohibiting predator control,
prohibiting the utilization of genetically modified crops, and
prohibiting the utilization of pesticides provide greater
flexibility for refuge managers?
Mr. Guertin. Congresswoman, I guess your question is
getting to the default language that is in the proposed rule
that an action is prohibited unless we do our homework, we do
the science, we show our work.
We believe that many of those practices, particularly
agriculture, will continue because they are used to mimic a lot
of natural functions.
Ms. Hageman. But that is not the default position, is it?
Mr. Guertin. No, I am not disagreeing with that. I am
saying we are still going to go through this homework, and then
allow agriculture to----
Ms. Hageman. How does requiring a full-blown NEPA analysis
for existing practices provide additional flexibility?
Mr. Guertin. Well, the BIDEH proposal, in and of itself, is
not requiring a full-blown NEPA analysis. We rely on the
existing and underlying analyses that are in place. The same
with the Cooperative Agriculture Agreements. We will address
those when they are up next time, 5 years, 6 years, and address
them at that time. I would be glad to follow up with your
office for some more----
Ms. Hageman. Well, I would like you to follow up with my
office. In fact, I really would have appreciated had you
followed up with my office the next day after the hearing, when
you assured me that we would have a 12-month finding related to
the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. And I am actually very
surprised that you failed to notify my office of that when you
were going to take a different route, having, in fact,
testified to something different the day before.
Mr. Guertin. Well, I certainly apologize for any confusion.
Not to argue with you, I understand your office was contacted
later in the month, but we can certainly do a better job, I am
sorry, I can't see you over the gentleman there, we can do a
better job reaching out to you in the future and giving you
more fulsome updates as they come along.
Ms. Hageman. Please do.
Mr. Guertin. We would be glad to. Yes, ma'am.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you. Congressman Grothman is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Grothman. Mr. Guertin, under the Service's proposed
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health rule
would a refuge manager be able to determine that hunting was
not compatible with biological integrity, diversity,
environmental health, and shut it down?
Mr. Guertin. Hunting is, for lack of a better term,
enshrined in our underlying organic statute, the Refuge
Improvement Act. And it is one of our premier uses on the
refuge system. We do not believe the BIDEH proposal would shut
down any hunting opportunities. If anything, they are subject
to a standalone process.
Mr. Grothman. Is that a blanket no?
Mr. Guertin. No, it wouldn't shut it down.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Under no circumstances. OK.
The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies met with the
Service prior to publication of the rule and expressed concern
that it would limit hunting and limit states' ability to manage
fish and wildlife. Why are AFWA's comments and concerns on the
rule not incorporated or referenced?
Mr. Guertin. As I mentioned in response to the
Congresswoman from Wyoming's question, or I am sorry, Chairman
Westerman's questions, we worked very closely with the
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, our state fish and
game partners during the proposed rule stage. We tried to
address as many of their comments as we could. In the end, if
we didn't, there was probably a professional agreement there.
But the goal is always to turn to our colleagues in the state
fish and game agencies first.
And now we have gotten comments from them from this open
comment period. We have had some follow-up meetings with them,
and those are the kind of things we are working through now to
try to get to the bottom of some of what their concerns were to
us.
Mr. Grothman. So, do you think there will be changes made
eventually in the rule?
Mr. Guertin. I can't speculate because it is still, with
200,000 comments that came in in these follow-up meetings, a
lot to chew through. But our director has charged us with
hearing people out, doing some follow-up with them, and trying
our best to incorporate those at a future point.
Mr. Grothman. OK, I will go back to my last question. I
mentioned hunting. How about fishing? Could you see any
restrictions on fishing?
Mr. Guertin. Congressman, none whatsoever. We allow fishing
on hundreds of our refuges. I am an avid angler myself, and
will keep an eye on that for myself.
Mr. Grothman. So, categorically, that could never happen
under this rule?
Mr. Guertin. I don't believe there is a very strong chance
of it being barred because of BIDEH. No, sir.
Mr. Grothman. So, probably not.
Mr. Guertin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Would you please describe the services
and cooperation of cooperative agriculture when drafting the
changes made to BIDEH?
Mr. Guertin. You want a clarification on how we are working
with Cooperative Agriculture Agreements?
Mr. Grothman. Well, your incorporation of cooperative
agriculture when drafting the changes.
Mr. Guertin. I have some statistics here for you. We
currently have over 1,700, almost 1,800, Cooperative
Agricultural Agreements with some 90,000 acres that we are
working with. We use a lot of these for row crops and others.
It helps us meet our duck energy production targets for
waterfowl management purposes.
If a producer or farmer had just signed a CAA with us in
the last couple of years, they have a 5-year duration. The next
time that we will talk to them about what that means under our
proposed new BIDEH regulation would be at that point when it is
up for renewal. We are just embracing everything coming
forward.
But we do use haying, grazing, agriculture significantly to
help us meet our wildlife management objectives. And we
believe, if adopted and finalized, the BIDEH regulations would
allow us to continue that partnership. It is good for
conservation, good for wildlife, and it benefits many of our
partners on those landscapes.
Mr. Grothman. Can you clarify what entails the definition
of a native predator as included in the updated BIDEH
regulation?
Mr. Guertin. We did a lot of work with the state fish and
game agencies on that. There was a lot of concern because it is
in a lot of state statutes, Federal regulations, and others. We
went with a simplistic approach: an animal that eats others or
preys on others.
And we also got a lot of feedback, particularly from the
states and from our colleagues up in Alaska. There is a lot of
concern about predator control, and people hunt for predators,
too. So, we made sure that that would be allowed to continue,
and not tying it into some of the more controversial predator
control.
Mr. Grothman. I will ask you this, the thing I have a
problem with. In Wisconsin, like I said, we have a really good
conservation system. We come up with all our own rules. Nobody
accuses our DNR of being conservative, I don't think.
Generally, the opposite. Nevertheless, it seems to work well.
Could you explain why you feel that you are going to be
better than a State DNR, Department of Natural Resources, when
it comes to things like determining whether or not you can take
predators?
Mr. Guertin. Sir, we don't think it is a turf battle. We
defer to our state colleagues on many cases.
Mr. Grothman. Well, many cases. The concern is on some you
won't.
Mr. Guertin. Sure. I think we are going to run out of time
here, but we would be glad to follow up with you or your staff
here in DC or your district to finish answering your question.
Mr. Grothman. Do you feel there are problems, like the
Wisconsin DNR is doing anything wrong today that you feel that
you have to come up with this big rule?
Mr. Guertin. No, sir, not at all.
Mr. Grothman. Any other place around the country you feel
that----
Mr. Bentz. The gentleman's time has expired. One last
question.
Mr. Grothman. Yes. Is there anywhere around the country you
can give us an example why you feel this new power should be
exercised?
Mr. Guertin. We don't view it as a power, sir. We provide
consistent guidance to our refuge managers to work with their
partners in their geography going forward.
And, again, we would be glad to follow up with you or your
staff here to work through some of your concerns, if I can
finish.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Congressman
Beyer for 5 minutes.
Mr. Beyer. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, thank you very
much, and thank you for allowing me to waive on.
I thought former Secretary and Congressman Zinke did a
great job describing the wildlife corridors bill before us. I
wanted to add two things.
First, I came to that from the perspective of the
Endangered Species Act and our working group on endangered
species, and I am particularly inspired by professor E.O.
Wilson, who is the great ant entomologist who had written a
number of books. But he was the one who came up with the idea
of biodiversity. And biodiversity fails when animals can't
procreate together. And the whole notion of being able to take
pockets of endangered species and allow them to come together,
whether they are Florida panthers, or monarch butterflies, or
grizzly bears, is really quite incredible.
The other perspective is I was a car dealer for 46 years.
It is amazing, the number of automobile accidents in Virginia
that are cars hitting deer, primarily, and bears, a couple
recently in northern Virginia. The body shop profits that are
made on the basis of not having wildlife corridors is very
significant. So, thank you for being part of this.
Mr. Leahy, you highlighted that many species, especially
big game species, serve to benefit from these investments in
wildlife habitat connectivity. Could you just further describe
how you see it affecting things like Florida panthers?
And do we have enough adequate resources at the state and
local government to do this?
Mr. Leahy. Thank you, Congressman Beyer, and thank you for
your leadership on this bill and this issue over many years.
The one aspect of the Wildlife Movement Through
Partnerships bill is that it does open up these processes in
the bill to all states, all vertebrate wildlife. It is focused
on terrestrial migrations and movements. So, a species like the
Florida panther or other species in other states, proposals
could be put in to do projects in support of those species.
But I think the partnership aspect of the bill is important
here, because it would still be proposals that are supported by
the state or the relevant tribe, and are done in partnership
and through collaboration. But it has taken some of these
models that have worked really well for big game in the West
and applying them to more species.
I do not think there are nearly enough resources at the
state or local level, or the Federal level for that matter, to
address this. But as far as the grant program, these will be
proposals and applications. So, there is opportunity to spread
the wealth around a little bit.
Mr. Beyer. And I appreciate your comment and Mr. Zinke's,
too, about the light touch, that we are not trying to mandate
where these corridors should be, that we leave these up to the
local governments, the state governments that understand the
species.
And Mr. Schmitz, I am really thankful for the Congressional
Sportsmen Foundation's endorsement. It is very helpful. Can you
speak about the current collaborations between localities and
the USGS corridor mapping team regarding the protection of
sensitive data?
I am particularly concerned about safeguards in the
publicized ungulate migrations of the western U.S. maps.
Mr. Schmitz. Congressman, thank you very much for that
question, and thank you, as well, for your leadership on this
important effort.
One of the important ways that USGS has gone about the
mapping piece is it has all been done in a voluntary, non-
regulatory manner. USGS has a lot of these capabilities and the
staff here in DC and across the country, and they have been
able to leverage the on-the-ground expertise with state
agencies, and have been able to develop agreements with state
agencies and allow the states to dictate the terms of what
information can and cannot be shared. And USGS has done a
tremendous job respecting that, and we appreciate their
commitment to do that.
Mr. Beyer. Great, thank you very much.
Deputy Director Guertin, you are obviously ground zero.
What is your perspective on wildlife corridors and how it
complements what you do at U.S. Fish and Wildlife?
Mr. Guertin. It complements, it drives a lot of our
mission, Congressman. It is all about connectivity and
corridors. We do this work both under Secretary Zinke's vision
and leadership with big game, but we also do it with migratory
birds. We do it with pollinators and butterflies. We do it with
waterfowl.
And I know you just had the Migratory Bird Commission
meeting this morning to talk about the stepping stone necklace
of refuges that birds go through to get their duck energy day
fulfilled every day so they can continue the migration. It is a
cornerstone of biology and conservation, and our Partners for
Fish and Wildlife program and Coastal Program and others are
our ground zero for delivering that mission with the support of
Congress here.
Mr. Beyer. Great. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Bentz. The Chair recognizes Congressman Smith for 5
minutes.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Chairman Bentz, and for the
opportunity to join all of you in committee here today, the
Natural Resources Committee, as we consider important pieces of
legislation.
I would also like to thank County Board Chair from
Hitchcock County, Nebraska, Paul Nichols, for taking the time
to join us here on the panel.
I am proud to represent the 3rd district of Nebraska, which
is home to the reservoirs under discussion today. This is an
issue which impacts constituents in my district and beyond. My
bill, the Swanson and Hugh Butler Reservoirs Land Conveyances
Act, would provide long-term certainty for those who have spent
generations building a ``home away from home,'' also the
businesses which depend on the revenue brought in from visitors
and certainly locals who enjoy recreational activities on the
reservoirs.
Mr. Nichols, can you discuss the relationship that Frontier
and Hitchcock Counties have with the concessionaires, impacted
businesses and local owners, and how have you worked together
on this issue?
And if you could turn on your microphone there so we can
all hear you, even though most everyone has already heard from
you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Nichols. Dawna Vap came to us 2 years ago, and said
that the Bureau was looking at closing executive use of the
concessionaire and stuff, and wanted to know if there was
anything we could do to help. So, we had public meetings. We
met with the Bureau and invited them to come down and explain
everything to us. And they told us that we needed to work with
our Senators or Nebraska delegates to develop a bill that they
could transfer ownership of the land to another government
entity. And we had a lot of public meetings about it and
everything.
We had no opposition. This is something that is vital to
our area. Like at Swanson, most of my reference is going to be
Swanson, because that is where we are from, 110 trailers there,
so that put us somewhere around probably 500 people in the
summer, and like Culberson and Trenton, Trenton has 300 and
some, I think it is, and Culberson has 500. So, it is very
beneficial to our area for the economy and stuff. And they pay
taxes, which is beneficial to the schools and everything, and
that is why we are here today is because the Bureau said they
want to do a transfer and stuff.
Mr. Smith. It seems like a well-vetted approach with input
from stakeholders at all levels. So, I certainly appreciate
that.
Can you attest to Frontier and Hitchcock Counties having
the means and ability to take ownership of the land and to
manage it?
Mr. Nichols. Yes. We are going to receive money from rent
to the concessionaires and stuff, so that will help for
payment. But we have also had people come forward that are
willing to donate the money. There will be no tax money used,
it will all be individual money to pay for the land. We have to
have it assessed by a Federal inspector or Federal appraiser,
and they will set the value, and then the Bureau will be paid
for that amount.
And we are only talking small acreages, a total of 77 acres
and that is less than 0.05 percent of the land. And it will
still remain used for the public. It will be open. The
concessionaire has a cafe, they sell the fishing equipment and
stuff for the lake, and permits and everything, and it is going
to be open for the public. As it has been for the last 40-some
years.
Mr. Smith. And just for the purpose of awareness, Hitchcock
County, the population in 2022 was 2,598. That is county-wide,
right?
Mr. Nichols. Right.
Mr. Smith. That is not just at the lake or in a
neighborhood.
Mr. Nichols. Right, and actually, the lake does not fall
into that county because that is off the census. And those
people at the lake mostly live in other areas and stuff.
Mr. Smith. So, your handout here that states there are
three restaurants in the entire county, is that right?
Mr. Nichols. Yes.
Mr. Smith. And if you lost this one at the lake, that would
reduce that to two?
Mr. Nichols. To two.
Mr. Smith. Right. And then, for Frontier County, a similar
population county-wide, although 30 percent more restaurants,
with four instead of three.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Smith. Anyway, I jest, but certainly I really
appreciate the whole process here that the community has gone
through out of concern for one another, out of concern for our
local communities and economies, and certainly, the handout
here points out not just the restaurants, but other parts of
the local economy, including property taxes, but the marinas,
the repair shops perhaps, the farmers co-op. The list is quite
long of those who would be negatively impacted if the Bureau's
original plan were to go through.
But I appreciate what seems to be cooperation at many
levels, and I look forward hopefully to this being resolved
soon, and certainly appreciate the indulgence of the Committee
to not only hear me out, but to also take up the legislation.
Thank you, I yield back.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you. The Chair recognizes himself for 5
minutes.
Mr. Nichols, I recognize your community. It is just like
mine. I remember attending a town hall meeting one time, and
there were a couple of folks running for county commissioner, I
think, and someone during the question and answer period asked
one of the ladies who was running, ``If you are elected, who is
going to be our cook at the local restaurant?'' The concern was
in a small community you have to have these things, and there
are very few people to replace them.
But I digress. I need to ask some questions, as opposed to
just comment. So, let me ask this question of you, Mr. Cochran.
The amount of money that is necessary is a lot. I think I
saw $50 billion, maybe $100 billion to take care of the
situation that is ongoing because, of course, that is the way a
river works. If we go ahead and make this investment, aren't we
really setting the stage for having to make the next one?
Because if we don't, don't we run the risk of losing the
investment we have just made?
Mr. Cochran. Well, there are two risks there. I will try to
parse it between the two.
Mr. Bentz. Keep it very short, because I have to get to Mr.
Guertin. I have some really tough questions for him. He
deserves them.
Go ahead, short.
Mr. Cochran. If we don't, yes, we risk losing what we have
invested. If we do, we have the opportunity to maintain not
just that part of the world, but all of the benefits that are
associated with it. Because if we don't, we don't just lose the
investment, we lose all of the benefits that exist today, as
they go away.
Mr. Bentz. Right, and it would be helpful if you did.
Everyone that is supportive of this, and I am, I was one of the
people risking my life in the helicopter a couple of weeks ago
as we flew over miles, and miles, and miles of what used to be
land and now is not, so I get it. So, if I could have those
existing investments that are at risk, I would like to see the
list. And I certainly listened to Congressman Graves, but the
written summary would be welcome.
Mr. Guertin, the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is in my
district back in Oregon. And for many, many years cattle grazed
upon it in a cooperative way. And there was zero doubt that the
presence of cattle, when appropriately managed, helped with the
birds that use that refuge. Correct or not?
In other words, I have in front of me, of course, any
number of studies that indicate that appropriately managed
grazing helps with birds. So, just tell me, do I have this
right?
Mr. Guertin. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we would agree with that.
Appropriately managed grazing does benefit many types of
habitat and benefits wildlife. That is why we have 1.9 million
acres of grazing with partners on the refuge system. It helps
us meet our mission, but we do the homework to make sure it
will be compatible with----
Mr. Bentz. You do the homework, and that is why the rule is
so problematic. You have always done the homework, and yet this
rule imposes a higher burden upon you than already existed
since 2001. So, why the bias? Why the bias suddenly against
cooperative Ag and natural predator management? I don't get it.
Why has this higher barrier been raised when we all know these
types of things were working?
Mr. Guertin. Mr. Chairman, we earnestly and sincerely don't
believe we are raising the bar or----
Mr. Bentz. OK. If I may, let me just read this to you. It
says the rule, if finalized, would make sweeping changes to the
ability of refuge managers to utilize key management tools.
Certain practices, such as native predator control and
cooperative Ag, are prohibited unless refuge managers fully
evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the management
activity in accordance with NEPA.
So, why do you say that nothing has changed?
And why do we need the rule if nothing has changed?
Mr. Guertin. You are talking about the default provision
that is in there, Mr. Chairman. We are following the law, the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. We have many
things that we are required to do in there. We allow a lot of
compatible uses----
Mr. Bentz. But are you saying the rule does not raise the
bar for cooperative Ag?
Mr. Guertin. We don't believe it will add a new burden.
These Cooperative Agriculture Agreements that are in place will
just carry forward.
Mr. Bentz. Then why do we need the rule?
Mr. Guertin. Because we are trying to be more consistent,
Mr. Chairman, trying to give our refuge managers a larger
goalpost to aim toward, and because the previous rule----
Mr. Bentz. OK, I get it. So, what you are saying is some of
your refuges were apparently allowing too much cooperative Ag.
And you want consistency with the highest level or the lowest
level?
Mr. Guertin. We want to empower them to make local
decisions.
Mr. Bentz. Well, you can't have consistency if you are
going to empower each of them to do something different.
Mr. Guertin. Well, Mr. Chairman, there is also a
consistency issue with the previous rule that had us try to
manage toward historic conditions we could never achieve. And
in the intervening 20 years we are addressing a lot more of
climatic-related impacts, sea level rise. So, we need a more
consistent approach, system-wide and for the refuges.
But we are glad to follow up with you and your staff, and
we are taking to heart your comments. We have 200,000 of them,
and we are working through them, sir.
Mr. Bentz. And I appreciate (a) your patience, and (b) your
work.
That concludes our questions, but I do want to ask
unanimous consent that a letter of support for H.R. 6352 and
H.R. 8836 from the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies be
submitted into the record, and a letter of support on H.R. 8836
from 26 conservation organizations.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Statement for the Record
Charles F. Sykes, President
Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies
on H.R. 6352 and H.R. 8836
The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (``Association'') is
the professional organization that represents the collective voice of
the fish and wildlife agencies in all 50 states, the U.S. Virgin
Islands, and District of Columbia (``state agencies''). These agencies
exercise primary statutory authority for management of fish and
wildlife as public trust resources within their borders. We thank the
Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife (``Subcommittee'') for its
ongoing leadership ensuring the ability of state agencies and their
federal partners to manage the species and habitats they are entrusted
to steward. We offer the following statement for consideration as
deliberations continue on H.R. 6352, the Tax Stamp Revenue Transfer for
Wildlife and Recreation Act and H.R. 8836, the Wildlife Movement
Through Partnerships Act, and stand ready to assist on these or any
other matters related to the responsible management of our nation's
fish and wildlife.
H.R. 6352 the Tax Stamp Revenue Transfer for Wildlife and Recreation
Act
The Association strongly supports H.R. 6352, the Tax Stamp Revenue
Transfer for Wildlife and Recreation Act. This legislation would
significantly bolster the ability of state agencies to deliver on their
mission as stewards of wildlife and habitats by allocating 85% of
firearm suppressor tax stamp revenues to the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Trust Fund (PR). The foundational pillar of the American
System of Conservation Funding, PR apportions funds generated by excise
taxes on firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment directly to State
Fish and Wildlife Agencies to enable the scientific management of
wildlife and habitats.
Thanks to these funds, over 35.5 million acres and 9,000 Wildlife
Management Areas are maintained and operated, with research,
monitoring, and inventory conducted for more than 500 species of birds
and mammals. Pittman-Robertson not only ensures healthy habitats and
abundant populations, but also fuels the ``user pays--public benefits''
cycle of success contributing to the $563.7 billion outdoor economy
that accounts for 2.2% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
With the addition of revenues from suppressor tax stamps, which are
estimated to contribute between $150 million to $170 million annually
if H.R. 6352 is enacted, Congress can build on and supercharge this
enduring legacy of conservation.
Suppressors are increasingly popular accessories that improve
ballistics, enhance accuracy, reduce recoil, and alleviate hearing
impairment while reducing user conflicts. Suppressors are one of the
most vital and effective tools to recruiting and retaining new
demographics of hunters and shooters, particularly women and young
people to shooting sports. Given their increased popularity and use
within the hunting and shooting sport community, we urge Congress to
pass this legislation so these funds can more appropriately go to fund
the very conservation and shooting activities authorized under PR.
H.R. 8836 the Wildlife Movement Through Partnerships Act
The Association strongly supports H.R. 8836, the Wildlife Movement
Through Partnerships Act. Secretarial Order 3362 (SO 3362), Improving
Habitat Quality in Western Big-Game Winter Range and Migration
Corridors, has enabled significant and impactful conservation efforts
that have improved the habitat for some of our nation's most iconic
wildlife species, including elk, mule deer, and pronghorn. The
voluntary and collaborative approach directed in SO 3362 has proven to
be a model of effective conservation that respects the rights of
landowners and incorporates the roles and authorities of state agencies
to ensure critical wildlife movement and migration areas are conserved
and enhanced.
Under SO 3362, the Bureau of Land Management, in collaboration with
state fish and wildlife agencies, Tribal governments, conservation
organizations, landowners, and other stakeholders, has successfully
removed or modified over 1,250 miles of fencing to facilitate the
natural movement and migration of wildlife. This work has directly
contributed to the improvement of over 3 million acres of big game
habitat, including over 1 million acres located in state-identified
migration corridors. These accomplishments represent real, tangible
improvements to the ecosystems that sustain these species and, by
extension, the outdoor heritage that is so deeply valued by Americans
across the country.
State fish and wildlife agencies have been integral to these
efforts, contributing their local expertise and ensuring that habitat
improvement projects are concentrated in the areas where they are most
needed, particularly those identified in State Wildlife Action Plans.
The results have been remarkable: approximately 2.9 million acres of
habitat have been enhanced for mule deer, 1.7 million acres for elk,
and 1.9 million acres for pronghorn. Beyond the numbers, these efforts
have also led to improved ecosystem health, benefiting not just big
game, but also the diverse plant, animal, and fish species that share
these habitats.
Connectivity and migration work is of course already being
conducted across the states for more than just big game species. For
example, Florida's connectivity efforts have improved habitats relied
upon by federally listed species and state Species of Greatest
Conservation need including the Florida panther, the population of
which has rebounded twentyfold since it was originally listed, and the
red-cockaded woodpecker, which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
proposed to reclassify from endangered to threatened. The success of
these initiatives underscores the importance of complementary programs
such as the Wildlife Crossings Pilot Program administered by the
Department of Transportation, and the need for continuing and expanding
the voluntary, grassroots approach to conservation of SO 3362 to the
rest of the country.
This is a winning strategy for both conservation and the economy.
By expanding these projects, we are not only safeguarding our natural
resources but also supporting the outdoor recreation economy, which is
vital to Americans and their local communities. We urge Congress to
support H.R. 8836 and to provide the necessary resources to build on
the successes state, federal, tribal, and private partners have already
achieved.
We again thank the Subcommittee for its consideration of the
perspectives of state agencies and the expertise of on-the-ground
natural resource managers, and we are glad to offer our assistance on
these or any other matters relevant to the management of our nation's
fish and wildlife resources.
______
September 10, 2024
Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chair
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Re: Support for H.R. 8836--the Wildlife Movement Through Partnerships
Act
Dear Chair Westerman and Ranking Member Grijalva:
On behalf of the millions of hunters, recreational shooters, and
natural resource management professionals we collectively represent, we
write to express our strong support for the Wildlife Movement Through
Partnerships Act. This bipartisan legislation supports proven
approaches to effectively and strategically apply conservation
activities that improve the ability for wildlife to make necessary
life-sustaining movements.
Secretarial Order 3362 (Improving Habitat Quality in Western Big-
Game Winter Range and Migration Corridors) has been a tremendously
successful effort and is well supported by a wide diversity of
organizations and individuals. Importantly, implementation of the Order
provided a template for how to conduct true collaboration between the
federal government, states, conservation organizations, and other
stakeholders. To ensure continued success, the Wildlife Movement
Through Partnerships Act seeks to codifying the Order by making into
law and strengthen it by expanding the focus beyond three species and
11 western states. H.R. 8836 incorporates the expertise of state,
tribal, federal, non-profit, and private individuals and agencies,
which ensures that public funds are used efficiently and effectively,
by formalizing the voluntary and non-regulatory conservation approach
of Secretarial Order 3362. H.R. 8836 supports wildlife conservation
while respecting the rights of property owners, state wildlife
management authority, tribal sovereignty and embraces the multiple-use
management of federal lands.
As organizations committed to the stewardship of our natural
resources in the most practical and effective manner, we understand
that the health of our ecosystems, and ultimately human populations, is
closely tied to the survival and well-being of big game (i.e. elk,
deer, pronghorn, moose, wild sheep) and other wildlife species.
Ensuring the conservation and enhancement of habitats along, and
connected by, movement routes is essential to maintain the
functionality of entire ecosystems across this country.
We urge your committee to swiftly mark up and pass the Wildlife
Movement Through Partnerships Act.
Sincerely,
Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies National Wildlife Federation
Backcountry Hunters &
Anglers North American Grouse Partnership
Boone and Crockett Club Pheasants Forever
Camp Fire Club of America Quail Forever
Catch-A-Dream Foundation Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Congressional Sportsmen's
Foundation Safari Club International
Dallas Safari Club Sportsmen's Alliance
Houston Safari Club The Wildlife Society
Masters of Foxhounds
Association Theodore Roosevelt Conservation
Partnership
Mule Deer Foundation Whitetails Unlimited
National Association of
Forest Service Retirees Wild Sheep Foundation
National Bobwhite &
Grassland Initiative
Foundation Wildlife Forever
National Deer Association Wildlife Management Institute
______
Mr. Bentz. With that, I want to thank the witnesses for
their 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
these in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the
Committee must submit questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5
p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 13. 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 4:05 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Statement for the Record
Bureau of Reclamation
U.S. Department of the Interior
on H.R. 8413
Reclamation plays an important role in meeting the increasing
public demand for water-based outdoor recreation facilities and
opportunities. The recreation areas developed as a result of
Reclamation water projects provide approximately 6.5 million acres of
land and water that is largely available for public outdoor recreation.
Among these expansive public resources are several facilities in
Nebraska where Reclamation has worked to improve the use of and access
to recreation for the benefit of the public. In 2023, this included
efforts to begin implementing improvement plans for the Swanson and Red
Willow Reservoir concession areas. The proposed improvements are
intended to support a blend of dispersed camping and developed
facilities such as camper hookups, tiny house cabin sites, shower
houses and trails that add to the diversity of recreation opportunities
and experiences at the two sites.
The redevelopment plans have been in the making for more than 23
years and are intended to address several hazards concerning life
safety and utility compliance with federal, state, and local
regulations at the concession areas. Reclamation's proposed
improvements to the sites were intended to increase public access to
the requested recreation facilities.
However, these proposed changes resulted in some concerns from the
local communities that currently make use of some existing private
exclusive use legacy cabin facilities and who wish to continue to do so
under the present arrangement, despite the age and condition of several
of these facilities. In response to these concerns, the Nebraska
delegation requested time to work with Reclamation and local parties to
find a different long-term solution that accommodates the current
residents' desires. That effort has resulted in H.R. 8413 the Swanson
and Hugh Butler Reservoirs Land Conveyances Act. Absent enactment of
this legislation, Reclamation intends to continue with its original
redevelopment plans in 2025.
The facilities to be conveyed under H.R. 8413 are counted among the
numerous dams, canals, and hydropower plants constructed by Reclamation
that provide water and power across the 17 western states. For most of
these project facilities, Reclamation has transferred all or part of
the responsibility for operation, maintenance, and replacement to a
project beneficiary. Title, or ownership, to Reclamation facilities,
however, remains with the United States Government unless Congress
passes legislation directing otherwise.
The transfer of title divests Reclamation of responsibility for the
operation, maintenance, replacement, management, regulation of, and
most of the liability for Federal interests in lands and project
facilities, while providing non-Federal entities with greater autonomy
and flexibility to manage the facilities.
In 2019 the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and
Recreation Act (P.L. 116-9) was signed into law. Title VIII of this Act
provides Reclamation with authority to transfer title to certain
eligible facilities to qualifying entities without separate and
individual acts of Congress. However, P.L. 116-9 outlined provisions
that excluded title transfer authority for certain facilities.
Reclamation has determined that this exclusion applies to the transfer
of the recreational land at Swanson Reservoir and Hugh Butler Reservoir
in the State of Nebraska in lieu of site-specific legislation. H.R.
8413 would then provide Reclamation with the necessary authority to
convey title to land at both reservoirs, subject to its various
conditions.
In general, the intent of H.R. 8413 is to provide a path for
Frontier and Hitchcock Counties in Nebraska to take ownership of
certain Federal lands that would otherwise be redeveloped for public
recreation use. H.R. 8413 enables local management of the recreational
lands and alleviates Reclamation's administrative oversight and
management responsibilities of the land. Section 3 of H.R. 8413 would
provide for the transfer of requested lands at Swanson Reservoir to
Hitchcock County. This includes a 20-acre public concession, a 21.5-
acre private concession, and 11 private cabin lots totaling
approximately 6-acres. Section 4 of H.R. 8413 would similarly provide
for the transfer of lands at Red Willow Reservoir to Frontier County.
This includes a 23-acre public concession and 8 private cabin lots
totaling approximately 6.5-acres.
The sequence for transfer under H.R. 8413 largely follows
Reclamation's standard process for title transfer as included within
Reclamation Manual Directives and Standards, CMP 11-01. For each
potential transfer, H.R. 8413 includes several stipulations. These
include: that the transfer for each requested site proceeds in whole
and is not subdivided; that each area continues to be managed for
substantially the same current purpose; that the final transfer
contains the necessary leases, permits, rights-of-way, easements, and
terms necessary to ensure the title transfer would not result in an
adverse impact on existing water or power delivery obligations; and
that the transfer complies with all applicable federal and state laws.
For each transfer, H.R. 8413 directs Reclamation to make an offer
of conveyance and enter into a memorandum of agreement to effectuate
the transfer, resulting in a title transfer agreement finalized within
three years after enactment. As part of the memorandum of agreement,
the Counties must demonstrate their capability to operate and maintain
the land, satisfy financial obligations, and to address any issues of
non-compliance with applicable State fire, safety, and health codes and
standards not later than 2 years after the date of the conveyance.
Additionally, H.R. 8413 would require that the counties provide, as
compensation for the transfer, the fair market value of the lands, to
ensure that conveyance of this land does not convey unauthorized
benefits and is in the financial interest of the United States. The
determination of fair market value must be completed in accordance with
the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. Further,
consistent with Reclamation's standard policy, H.R. 8413 would require
that each county provide funding, in advance, for the estimated costs
to be incurred by Reclamation to process the conveyance request.
Finally, H.R. 8413 would ensure that any subsequent transfer would be
at no cost, with the same terms as this proposed transfer, and would be
conveyed to another State or public entity to ensure that the lands
would remain in the public domain.
Reclamation is committed to ensuring that the recreation facilities
at both Red Willow and Swanson Reservoirs are available for public
enjoyment and are compliant with all relevant federal, state, and local
regulations. H.R. 8413 will legislatively preserve the status-quo of
private exclusive use of the requested lands, subject to each County's
discretion moving forward, and discontinues Reclamation's redevelopment
plans.
If enacted, we encourage each County to look for opportunities to
improve public access to these recreational facilities. Reclamation is
hopeful that the local authorities, to whom H.R. 8413 transfers title,
will ensure that the requested lands be used to meet the outdoor
recreation needs of the public and is supportive of their efforts to do
so, whether accomplished through H.R. 8413 or through Reclamation's
redevelopment plans.
______
Statement for the Record
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is
responsible for the stewardship of the nation's living marine resources
and their habitat. NOAA's Office of Habitat Conservation protects and
restores habitat to sustain fisheries, recover protected species, and
maintain resilient coastal ecosystems and communities. For decades,
NOAA has engaged with our partners on significant habitat restoration
initiatives in coastal communities across the country, including in the
Gulf of Mexico. These efforts include our work through the Coastal
Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) to restore
Louisiana coastal habitat, our Damage Assessment, Restoration and
Remediation Program (DARRP) including restoration addressing the
Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil spill, and our Community-based Restoration
Program (CRP). NOAA appreciates Representative Grave's and the
Committee's attention to coastal restoration needs in support of
fisheries and coastal communities in Louisiana.
Importance of our Coastal Habitats in the Gulf of Mexico
The Gulf of Mexico region is one of the most ecologically and
economically productive ecosystems in the world. Recreation, leisure,
and tourism industries contribute significantly to the Gulf economy
employing millions of people. The Gulf of Mexico supports some of the
largest recreational and valuable commercial fisheries in the nation
with commercial landings of approximately 1.6 billion pounds in 2015
\1\ (NOAA, 2024). Unfortunately, the Gulf of Mexico region is also
experiencing one of the highest rates of coastal land loss, mostly
wetlands, in the world. In addition to the ecological impacts, the loss
of coastal wetlands reduces coastal resilience for millions of U.S.
citizens facing threats of sea level rise and increasing intensity of
hurricanes. Many of these populations are in underserved or socially
vulnerable communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/ocd/ocdweb/ESR_GOMIEA/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (CWPPRA)
Under CWPPRA, the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and
Restoration Task Force (an interagency task force consisting of NOAA,
the Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Fish and Wildlife Service, the Natural Resources Conservation Service,
the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the State of Louisiana) is
helping to restore Louisiana's coastal habitat. Since 1990, the CWPPRA
Program has served as the primary means for responding to coastal
wetland loss in Louisiana. CWPPRA's roughly $80 million annual
construction budget typically supports two projects per year. Through
this task force, NOAA works with its state and federal partners and
landowners to fund and implement restoration projects. To date, NOAA
has been the federal sponsor for 29 constructed CWPPRA wetland
restoration projects with an estimated cost of approximately $474
million, restoring more than 13,707 acres of vulnerable coastline. NOAA
is engaged in the active design and construction of additional
projects, with the goal of restoring 2,500 acres of habitat.
Damage Assessment, Restoration and Remediation Program (DARRP)
including the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) Oil Spill
For over 30 years through the DARRP, NOAA has assessed and restored
coastal environments damaged by oil spills, hazardous waste releases,
and vessel groundings. Working with partners from state, tribal, and
federal agencies and industry, we have recovered over $10 billion
dollars to restore a wide variety of critical habitats and resources
nationwide. In the Gulf of Mexico, NOAA and co-trustees have resolved
nearly 40 pollution events (excluding Deepwater Horizon) with a
restoration value of approximately $151 million. Associated restoration
actions improved coastal resilience, enhanced recreational uses such as
fishing, and employed local contractors for engineering and
construction.
Working with federal and state partners, NOAA played key roles from
the earliest moments after the DWH spill--responding to the spill,
assessing the damage, developing restoration plans, and implementing
on-the-ground restoration projects. Since the spill, NOAA has been
working with our partners and affected communities to plan, implement,
and evaluate activities to restore natural resources injured as a
result of the spill. This work is driving hundreds of restoration
projects across the Gulf. NOAA's restoration work is focused on fish,
marine mammals, sea turtles, Gulf sturgeon, marine and coastal
habitats, and deep-Gulf ecosystems. To date, NOAA and the other federal
and state Trustees have committed over $5 billion to almost 300
restoration projects and activities.
Community-based Restoration Program (CRP)
Since 1996, CRP has conducted habitat restoration by executing
large-scale competitive funding opportunities and providing expert
technical assistance. Projects awarded range from improving access to
habitat by removing dams and other barriers, to restoring coral and
oyster reefs, to rebuilding coastal wetlands. The program is currently
executing historic levels of funding provided through the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act, including over $120
million invested in projects located in the Gulf of Mexico.
Supporting our Partners through Technical Assistance
Through all of these different programs, NOAA's Office of Habitat
Conservation plays an integral role in restoration efforts by providing
support through the entire restoration process. In collaboration with
partners, our team provides technical expertise on project planning,
engineering and design, grants administration, regulatory requirements
and project management. We also provide support through engagement and
outreach, relationship-building, and sharing lessons learned and best
practices. Because many of them live and work in the coastal
communities we serve, including five locations across the Gulf of
Mexico, they are uniquely positioned to engage in a way that is
tailored to the needs of each community and ecosystem, and to help
navigate hurdles that may arise.
Conclusion
In conclusion, NOAA values the opportunity to continue working with
Representative Graves and this Committee on this important issue and
supports additional habitat restoration in the Gulf of Mexico. NOAA
will continue to invest and support our partners working in this
important area. Thank you and your staff for your work to support NOAA
and restoration in Louisiana and the Gulf of Mexico.
______
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Zinke
Western Governors' Association
Denver, CO
September 10, 2024
Hon. Cliff Bentz, Chairman
Hon. Jared Huffman, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries
House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Bentz and Ranking Member Huffman:
In light of the Subcommittee's September 10, 2024, Legislative
Hearing on H.R. 6352, H.R. 8413, H.R. 8632, and H.R. 8836, please find
attached Western Governors' Association (WGA) Policy Resolution 2024-
03, Species Conservation and the Endangered Species Act. The resolution
recommends supporting voluntary and locally-led conservation activities
to conserve wildlife migration corridors, habitat, and species
populations.
I request that you include this document in the permanent record of
the hearing, as it articulates Western Governors' collective and
bipartisan policy positions and recommendations on the issues addressed
by H.R. 8836.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. Please contact me
if you have any questions or require further information.
Sincerely,
Jack Waldorf,
Executive Director
Attachment
______
WESTERN GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION
Policy Resolution 2024-03
Species Conservation and the Endangered Species Act
A. BACKGROUND
1. Through broad trustee, statutory, and police powers, states
have primary management authority over fish and wildlife.
This system of wildlife and habitat management is grounded
in the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation and
has enabled western states to become leaders in the
conservation and recovery of numerous threatened,
endangered, and species of concern. Continued cooperative
relationships between federal, state, and tribal
governments, nonprofit organizations, and private
stakeholders are essential to the successful management of
all species and their habitats. Where voluntary, incentive-
based conservation activities have been effective, they
have precluded the need to list species under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). Western Governors have a
vested interest in utilizing these tools to effectively
manage wildlife and habitat for a balance of uses.
B. GOVERNORS' POLICY STATEMENT
Species Conservation
1. Western Governors support all reasonable proactive management
efforts to conserve species and the ecosystems upon which
they depend to sustain populations of diverse wildlife and
habitats, recover species before they are so imperiled they
need ESA protection, and retain the West's wildlife legacy
for future generations. Western Governors also support
initiatives that engage state and tribal governments as
well as stakeholders to develop incentives for early,
voluntary conservation measures to address multiple threats
to species while preserving and enhancing western working
landscapes.
2. Western Governors believe states should be full partners in
listing, critical habitat designations, recovery planning,
recovery efforts, and delisting decisions. The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively, the Services),
working with the states, should establish consistent
criteria to assess modeling related to projected scientific
information and other factors in their scientific review.
In these circumstances, federal agencies should partner
with states and management authorities with expertise over
the given model to develop and utilize mutually acceptable
predictive techniques and consensus-based metrics that are
grounded in science and measurable outcomes.
3. Western Governors believe that ESA decisions should be based on
the best available science. State agencies often have the
best available science, expertise and other scientific and
institutional resources such as mapping capabilities,
biological inventories, biological management goals, state
wildlife action plans and other important data. The
Services should utilize state expertise and resources
whenever possible. All listing, recovery, and delisting
decisions should utilize objective, peer-reviewed
scientific literature, and scientific observations. When
making a listing decision for a species where state or
multi-state conservation plans employing the best available
science have been primarily used in the management of that
species, upon review, consultation, and endorsement, the
Services should give careful consideration to those
management activities. A review of the scientific and
management provisions contained within listing, recovery,
and de-listing decisions by acknowledged independent
experts is important to ensure the public that decisions
are well-reasoned and scientifically based. Scientific and
management review committees, as well as the scope and
extent of the appropriate scientific and management review,
should be agreed upon by the Services and the affected
states. Federal agencies should, when appropriate, delegate
their responsibility to name these review committees and
determine the scope of review to states in order to enhance
state ownership of the committee's decision.
4. Western Governors believe that states need clear, concrete
guidance from the Services about the requirements of state
and multi-state conservation plans in meeting species and
habitat conservation goals and objectives that would lead
to stable or increasing populations, address perceived
threats to the species, and eliminate the need for listing.
Western Governors also encourage the pursuit of all efforts
to reduce regulatory burdens on state and tribal
governments as well as stakeholders that are not necessary
to achieve species conservation and biodiversity goals and
objectives.
5. The Services should acknowledge that variability in state
approaches for conservation of species is acceptable,
particularly for species with a wide geographic range, as
long as established conservation goals and objectives are
met.
6. The Services should explore employment options, including
revised Government Schedule requirements, expanded use of
detail positions, and shared staff between nongovernmental
partners, state agencies, and federal agencies to increase
interagency coordination and familiarity with processes.
These types of well-rounded personnel can then more
effectively serve as conveners and facilitators for
multiagency actions.
7. Governors support legislative initiatives, court rulings,
petitions, or regulatory measures which allow local, state,
federal and private conservation efforts adequate time to
be implemented and demonstrate their efficacy while also
avoiding excessive delay protecting and recovering
imperiled species. Governors believe there should be no
delays in delisting recovered species which meet statutory
requirements for delisting due to excessive, costly and
resource-intensive litigation. States can help local
efforts achieve success by supporting them with tools for
assessing and stabilizing priority habitats and species.
8. Western Governors believe funding and economic incentives for
proactive, voluntary conservation efforts are essential.
Such efforts may lead to rapid conservation outcomes and
even obviate the need to list a species in the first
instance. Additional incentives for willing private
landowners to participate in voluntary conservation efforts
are likely to achieve more efficient and cost-effective
results. Funded and incentivized activities should include:
Restoration of native habitat on public and private
lands;
Amelioration of threats to species populations;
Long-term management activities for conservation-
reliant species;
Management of invasive species adversely affecting
species and habitat, including research programs;
Management of public lands in a way that supports
multiple uses, including the minimization of human-wildlife
and livestock-wildlife conflict; and
Monitoring and enforcement to ensure species and
habitat conservation goals and activities are being met.
9. Governors believe adequate post-listing funding of species
management, monitoring, and conservation is necessary as
state and federal agencies increasingly assume ESA
management activities and embrace ecosystem and multi-
species management strategies. Funding for ESA-related
activities, especially recovery plans and recovery efforts,
should be enhanced to address the growing list of
threatened and endangered species. A broad range of
programs, from the Farm Bill to the Water Resources
Development Act, should be reviewed for opportunities to
assist communities and landowners in their efforts to
conserve listed species in a manner that respects water and
property rights. The Cooperative Endangered Species
Conservation Fund authorized under ESA Section 6 should
also be funded and managed as a block grant, with state
discretion on spending priorities.
10. Western Governors support funding for wildlife conservation
education and recreation programs to help better connect
people with their natural surroundings and experience
wildlife in their natural habitat. Funding for educational
and community-based programs can encourage younger
generations to learn about fish and wildlife conservation
early and obtain the skills to partake in outdoor
activities themselves.
11. Western Governors support the North American Model of Wildlife
Conservation and the associated user-pay structure that
enables state agency management activities with funding
from license sales. Western Governors also recognize that
continued engagement in license-based activities is
necessary for healthy wildlife populations and habitat. The
recruitment, retention, and reactivation of hunters and
anglers is essential to these goals, and programs which
support this engagement should be funded and delivered to
all Americans.
Wildlife Migration Corridors and Habitat
12. Western Governors believe that federal land management agencies
should allow states and tribes to lead in identifying key
wildlife migration corridors and habitat in the West,
acknowledge the value of multiple-use landscapes, and
engage in early and substantive consultation with Governors
prior to the promulgation of any policy pertaining to the
management of wildlife corridors and habitat. Western
Governors believe in applying the best-available state-led
science and models for precise, data-driven decision
making. Western Governors also encourage federal land
management agencies to take proactive steps to ensure that
management plans and projects are consistent with and
supportive of state wildlife migration priorities,
programs, and policies.
13. Western Governors urge federal land management agencies and
non-governmental organizations--in coordination with state
fish and wildlife agencies--to work with private landowners
and local communities to identify monetary and non-monetary
incentives to encourage voluntary corridor and habitat
conservation efforts. Western Governors encourage dialogue
among relevant partners in the West to identify
collaborative solutions to wildlife corridor and habitat
conservation across land ownerships.
14. Western Governors encourage Congress and the Executive Branch
to maintain a financial investment in research and habitat
improvement projects to conserve migration corridors
through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation's
Improving Habitat Quality in Western Big Game and Migration
Corridors Program and the USFWS Migratory Bird Program.
15. Western Governors commend the considerable efforts already
underway to increase coordination between state fish and
wildlife agencies and state departments of transportation
to integrate consideration of wildlife corridors and
habitat connectivity into transportation infrastructure
planning and development. Western Governors urge the
Department of the Interior and the U.S. Department of
Transportation to cooperate in a similar manner on projects
under their jurisdiction and support intra-state efforts
when appropriate. The Governors also support development of
best practices to expand federal and state agency
coordination.
16. The Governors support proactive planning on public lands that
seeks to direct future development actions with due
consideration for large tracts of intact wildlife habitat
and connectivity corridors.
17. Western Governors believe that any federal efforts to identify
and conserve wildlife migration corridors through
administrative or legislative action must rely upon
proactive coordination and consultation with states and
should advance voluntary, incentive-based, and locally
driven initiatives to conserve key wildlife corridors and
habitat. Governors further encourage Congress and the
Administration to support collaborative and locally
developed initiatives through financial and technical
assistance.
18. Governors appreciate federal support for habitat connectivity
and urge Congress to include long-term funding and
provisions in its next reauthorization of federal surface
transportation programs for state-supported transportation
infrastructure projects that support fish and wildlife
crossings and habitat connectivity.
C. GOVERNORS' MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE
1. The Governors direct WGA staff to work with congressional
committees of jurisdiction, the Executive Branch, and other
entities, where appropriate, to achieve the objectives of
this resolution.
2. Furthermore, the Governors direct WGA staff to consult with the
Staff Advisory Council regarding its efforts to realize the
objectives of this resolution and to keep the Governors
apprised of its progress in this regard.
This resolution will expire in December 2026. Western Governors enact
new policy resolutions and amend existing resolutions on a semiannual
basis. Please consult http://www.westgov.org/resolutions for the most
current copy of a resolution and a list of all current WGA policy
resolutions.
______
National Audubon Society
Washington, DC
September 10, 2024
Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chair
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Re: Support for the Wildlife Movement Through Partnerships Act (H.R.
8836)
Dear Chair Westerman and Ranking Member Grijalva:
On behalf of the National Audubon Society and our 1.4 million
members and supporters, we would like to express our support for the
Wildlife Movement Through Partnerships Act (H.R. 8836) and urge the
Committee to advance the bill to the House floor. As an organization
dedicated to conservation, we acknowledge that healthy habitat is
needed for healthy wildlife populations, including birds.
Birds are vital indicators of ecosystem health and play essential
roles in maintaining balanced environments. Effective habitat
connectivity is crucial for their survival, as it helps to ensure the
availability of resources and provide stopover areas and habitats for
migration. By supporting this bill, we can significantly enhance these
connections, benefiting countless bird species.
Additionally, birdwatching generates nearly $100 billion in
economic revenue annually, underscoring the importance of conserving
and restoring habitats that support both bird populations and the
economy. The Wildlife Movement Through Partnerships Act will provide
essential resources for habitat connectivity projects, benefiting birds
and big game species.
While progress has been made to conserve essential habitats for
migrating species, more work remains to be done. This Act would
encourage coordination across the federal agencies, enhance
collaboration, and support States, Tribes, and private landowners in
their efforts to improve habitat connectivity and migration corridors.
We urge the committee to promptly advance this critical legislation
to conserve connected habitats.
Sincerely,
National Audubon Society
[all]