[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 1885, H.R. 2294, H.R. 2860, AND H.R. 3179
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, May 20, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-25
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
60-605 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
ROBERT J. WITTMAN, VA, Vice Chairman
JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Member
Robert J. Wittman, VA Joe Neguse, CO
Tom McClintock, CA Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Paul Gosar, AZ Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS Val T. Hoyle, OR
Doug LaMalfa, CA Seth Magaziner, RI
Daniel Webster, FL Jared Golden, ME
Russ Fulcher, ID Dave Min, CA
Pete Stauber, MN Maxine Dexter, OR
Tom Tiffany, WI Pablo Jose Hernandez, PR
Lauren Boebert, CO Emily Randall, WA
Cliff Bentz, OR Yassamin Ansari, AZ
Jen Kiggans, VA Sarah Elfreth, MD
Wesley P. Hunt, TX Adam Gray, CA
Mike Collins, GA Luz Rivas, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Mark Amodei, NV Debbie Dingell, MI
Tim Walberg, MI Darren Soto, FL
Mike Ezell, MS Julia Brownley, CA
Celeste Maloy, UT Vacancy
Addison McDowell, NC
Jeff Crank, CO
Nick Begich, AK
Jeff Hurd, CO
Mike Kennedy, UT
Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
William David, Chief Counsel
Ana Unruh Cohen, Democratic Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES
HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, WY, Chair
MIKE EZELL, MS, Vice Chair
VAL T. HOYLE, OR, Ranking Member
Robert J. Wittman, VA Seth Magaziner, RI
Tom McClintock, CA Debbie Dingell, MI
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Doug LaMalfa, CA Jared Golden, ME
Daniel Webster, FL Dave Min, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO Sarah Elfreth, MD
Cliff Bentz, OR Adam Gray, CA
Jen Kiggans, VA Luz Rivas, CA
Tim Walberg, MI Darren Soto, FL
Mike Ezell, MS Julia Brownley, CA
Celeste Maloy, UT Joe Neguse, CO
Addison McDowell, NC Jared Huffman, CA, ex officio
Jeff Crank, CO
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing Memo..................................................... v
Hearing held on May 20, 2025..................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Hageman, Hon. Harriet, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Wyoming........................................... 2
Elfreth, Hon. Sarah, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Maryland.......................................... 2
Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 8
Gray, Hon. Adam, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, prepared statement for the record........... 52
Panel I:
Ezell, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Mississippi, prepared statement for the record.......... 46
Murphy, Hon. Gregory F., a Representative in Congress from
the State of North Carolina................................ 4
Larsen, Hon. Rick, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 5
Babin, Hon. Brian, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas............................................. 7
Statement of Witnesses:
Panel II:
Miko, David, Acting Deputy Director of Operations, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Department of the InteriorWashington,
D.C........................................................ 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Questions submitted for the record....................... 13
Panel III:
Nungaray, Alexis, Mother of Jocelyn Nungaray, Houston, Texas. 26
Prepared statement of.................................... 27
Howden, Stephan, Professor, University of Southern
Mississippi, Stennis Space Center, Mississippi............. 28
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
Young, Robert, Professor, Department of Geosciences and
Natural Resources, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee,
North Carolina............................................. 30
Prepared statement of.................................... 32
Leonard, Tom, Alderman, Town of North Topsail Beach, North
Topsail Beach, North Carolina.............................. 33
Prepared statement of.................................... 35
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Statement.......................... 45
Submissions for the Record by Representative Ezell
FY26 Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS),
Appropriations Letter.................................. 42
Woods Hole Group, Support Letter......................... 47
Tampa Bay Pilots Association, Support Letter............. 48
The U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS): A
Prototype User Valuation............................... 49
BAMA Sea Products, Support Letter........................ 50
Sofar Ocean Technologies, Support Letter................. 51
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
To: House Committee on Natural Resources Republican Members
From: Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries staff: Annick
Miller, ([email protected]), Doug Levine
(doug.levine@
mail.house.gov), Kirby Struhar ([email protected]),
and Thomas Shipman ([email protected]) x58331
Date: Monday, May 19, 2025
Subject: Legislative Hearing on H.R. 1885, H.R. 2294, H.R. 2860, and
H.R. 3179
________________________________________________________________________
The Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries will hold a
legislative hearing on H.R. 1885 (Rep. Murphy), ``Town of North Topsail
Beach Coastal Barrier Resources System Map Amendment Act of 2025'';
H.R. 2294 (Rep. Ezell), To reauthorize the Integrated Coastal and Ocean
Observation System Act of 2009; H.R. 2860 (Rep. Larsen) ``Northwest
Straits Marine Conservation Initiative Reauthorization Act of 2025'';
and H.R. 3179 (Rep. Babin), To rename the Anahuac National Wildlife
Refuge located in the State of Texas as the ``Jocelyn Nungaray National
Wildlife Refuge'' on Tuesday, May 20, 2025, at 10:30 a.m. (EDT) in 1334
Longworth House Office Building.
Member offices are requested to notify Jackson Renfro
([email protected]) by 4:30 p.m. on Monday, May 19, 2025,
if their Member intends to participate in the hearing.
I. KEY MESSAGES
House Republicans are holding a hearing on three bills
that promote local control of land use decisions, science-
based decision making, and codify an Executive Order signed
by President Trump honoring a victim of senseless violence.
H.R. 1885 promotes responsible development of coastal
communities by fixing errors made in the administration of
the Coastal Barrier Resources Act in North Topsail Beach,
NC.
H.R. 2294 reauthorizes a program at the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration that ensures the most up-to-
date science and data are in the hands of local decision
makers. This ensures the protection of coastal communities
and supports the many industries that operate in our marine
waters.
H.R. 3179 honors a young life cut tragically short and
ensures Jocelyn Nungaray's legacy is enshrined forever at
the Jocelyn Nungaray National Wildlife Refuge. This
legislation codifies President Trump's Executive Order
Honoring Jocelyn Nungaray, which he signed on March 4,
2025.
II. WITNESSES
Panel I
Members of Congress TBD
Panel II
Mr. David Miko, Acting Deputy Director of Operations, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC [H.R. 1885 and H.R. 3179]
Panel III
Ms. Alexis Nungaray, mother of Jocelyn Nungaray, Houston,
TX [H.R. 3179]
Dr. Stephan Howden, Professor, University of Southern
Mississippi, Stennis Space Center, Mississippi [H.R. 2294]
Dr. Rob Young, Director, Program for the Study of
Developed Shorelines, Western Carolina University,
Cullowhee, North Carolina [H.R. 1885] (Minority Witness)
Mr. Tom Leonard, Alderman, Town of North Topsail Beach,
North Carolina [H.R. 1885]
III. BACKGROUND
H.R. 1885 (Rep. Murphy, R-NC), ``Town of North Topsail Beach Coastal
Barrier Resources System Map Amendment Act of 2025''
Enacted in 1982, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA)
established the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System
(System), which consists of undeveloped coastal barriers and other
areas of the eastern seaboard, the Great Lakes, U.S. Caribbean
territories, and the Gulf of America.1 CBRA restricts the
use of new federal funding that may encourage development on or around
certain coastal barriers.2 The intention of these
restrictions is to ``minimize the loss of human life, wasteful
expenditure of federal revenues, and the damage to fish, wildlife, and
other natural resources associated with the coastal barriers.''
3 CBRA is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), and the System currently encompasses 3.5 million acres.
In 2000, Congress passed the ``Coastal Barrier Resources
Reauthorization Act'' (CBRRA), which included provisions defining
whether a coastal barrier is developed or not when it is included in
the System.4 The parameters included in that bill originated
from a 1982 proposed rulemaking entitled, ``Federal Flood Insurance
Prohibition for Undeveloped Coastal Barriers; Proposed Identification
and Submission of Report to Congress,'' 5 which has served
as a guideline for USFWS CBRA mapping efforts, even though it was never
finalized. Under CBRRA and the proposed rule, the Secretary must
consider if:
The density of development is less than one structure per
5 acres of land above mean high tide; and
There is no existing infrastructure consisting of:
a road, with a reinforced roadbed, to each lot
or building site in the area;
a wastewater disposal system sufficient to
serve each lot or building site
in the area;
electric service for each lot or building site
in the area; and
a freshwater supply for each lot or building
site in the area.6
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
H.R. 1885 would require the Secretary of the Interior
(Secretary) to remove the areas of North Topsail Beach, North Carolina,
that are located within CBRA Unit L06, which, according to local zoning
ordinances, are for purposes other than conservation as of the date of
enactment of this Act.
The original CBRA maps, adopted in 1982 and amended in 1990,
include sections of North Topsail Beach, NC, in the System's Unit L06,
which the town has long disputed.7 According to the town,
they meet the criteria set out by the CBRRA that prevent these areas
from being considered undeveloped coastal barriers.
When areas were determined for CBRA designations in 1982, aerial
pictures were used to assess areas under consideration. When the USFWS
utilized aerial photographs of the area that now encompasses Unit L06,
they could not determine the underground infrastructure at the site.
According to the town, ``North Topsail Water and Sewer Corporation
began constructing, operating, and maintaining water, sewer, and street
treatment in 1979. These infrastructure improvements were available to
each of the lots in the January 15, 1982, zoning maps.'' 8
In addition to sewer systems, reinforced roads, electrical services,
and water systems were in place within L06 by 1982.9
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Separately, in 2021, the USFWS transmitted a map for Unit L06
that makes minor and technical corrections, removing about 2.5 acres
from the System.10 The Bolstering Ecosystems Against Coastal
Harm (BEACH) Act codified this map into law in the 118th
Congress.11
H.R. 2294 (Rep. Ezell, R-MS) To reauthorize the Integrated Coastal and
Ocean Observation System Act of 2009.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) work
in our nation's marine waters--preparing for and responding to
disasters, protecting coastal resources, supporting energy production,
or managing federal fisheries--requires the most up-to-date science and
data to advise decisions. One of the ways NOAA achieves this objective
is through the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS),12 a
program within NOAA's National Ocean Service that exists as a public-
private partnership of coastal observation systems that seeks to
collect data to improve this work. IOOS is made up of radar, gliders,
buoys, vessels, and different models and forecasts 13 that
collect data points to inform decision-making along our nation's coasts
and in marine waters. This information improves operations for the
businesses and industries that operate in our marine waters, supports
military operations, and assists in responding to natural disasters
like floods and hurricanes.
IOOS operates along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, the Gulf of
America, the Great Lakes, Alaska, the Pacific Ocean, and the
Caribbean.14 Operating in partnership with 11 regional
associations allows IOOS to partner with the local communities. It is
designed to help develop new technologies and expertise and increase
information sharing to accomplish this work.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
For example, in the Gulf of America, the Gulf of America
Coastal Ocean Observing System (GCOOS) has deployed a glider program
that protects communities along the Gulf Coast.15 GCOOS'
Glider Dashboard 16 is able to take the data that these
gliders collect and publish it on its website to be available in real
time. This dashboard contains data like salinity, current depth, and
water temperature.17 Similarly, in the Pacific Northwest,
the Northwest Association of Networked Ocean Observing Systems (NANOOS)
is made up of more than 70 different entities to assist with coastal
management, maintenance of the region's estuaries, and tracks similar
data for fishing communities and the ports that operate in the region,
among others.18
While NOAA's work on these issues has been ongoing for decades,
IOOS was formally authorized by Congress in the Omnibus Public Land
Management Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-11).19 Authorizing this
program formalized the structure and process for IOOS to collaborate
with national and regional partners and other federal agencies to carry
out this work.
H.R. 2294 reauthorizes this program at its current authorization
level of $56 million per fiscal year (FY) from FY 2026 through 2030.
H.R. 2860 (Rep. Larsen, D-WA) ``Northwest Straits Marine Conservation
Initiative Reauthorization Act of 2025''
In 1998, Congress authorized the Northwest Straits Advisory
Commission as part of P.L. 105-384.20 This Commission was
created to respond to public resistance to a national marine sanctuary
that was proposed in the region. It is focused on proactive engagement
as local communities work to protect their marine
resources.21 Notably, advocacy from local leaders caused the
sanctuary proposal to be dropped.22 P.L. 105-384 authorized
the Secretary of Commerce to collect data on marine resources in the
Northwest Straits, coordinate activities to protect and restore these
resources, and carry out activities identified in the Northwest Straits
Citizens' Advisory Commission Report to the Secretary of Commerce in
1998.23
In reauthorizing this entity, H.R. 2860 provides more specificity
regarding the commission's membership. It would require that members of
certain counties' marine resources committees be appointed and that the
Department of the Interior and the Northwest Indian Fisheries
Commission appoint two members. It also allows the Governor of
Washington State to appoint five members representing varying
interests.
The bill requires the NOAA Administrator to appoint an employee to
serve as a liaison between NOAA and the Commission, coordinating NOAA's
programs to achieve the goal of the Commission, which is defined as
``to protect and restore the marine waters, habitats, and species of
the Northwest Straits region to achieve ecosystem health and
sustainable resource'' by designing projects, offering recommendations
to improve the Straits' health, and partnering with entities like the
Puget Sound Partnership along with Tribal entities.24 To
accomplish this goal, the Commission is directed to support local
marine resource committees and other Federal, state, and local entities
to protect these marine resources and provide a forum to discuss these
issues. It also requires an annual report to Congress on the
Commission's activities and accomplishments in protecting the Northwest
Straits' marine resources.
H.R. 2860 authorizes $10 million for FYs 2026 through 2031 to carry
out this program and authorizes such sums as necessary starting in FY
2032 and moving forward.
H.R. 3179 (Rep. Babin, R-TX), To rename the Anahuac National Wildlife
Refuge located in the State of Texas as the ``Jocelyn Nungaray
National Wildlife Refuge''
Jocelyn Nungaray was a 12-year-old girl from Houston, Texas whose
life was tragically cut short on June 16, 2024, when she was raped and
murdered by two Venezuelan nationals who entered the U.S. illegally and
are allegedly members of the Tren de Aragua gang.25
Jocelyn's death quickly garnered national attention and renewed calls
for more stringent immigration policies.26
To permanently commemorate Ms. Nungaray, known for her special
affinity for animals, President Trump signed Executive Order (E.O.)
14229 on March 4, 2025. This order directed the Secretary of the
Interior (Secretary) to change the name of the Anahuac National
Wildlife Refuge to the ``Jocelyn Nungaray National Wildlife Refuge.''
27
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Alexis Nungaray, Jocelyn's mother, was a special guest of the
President during his March 4, 2025, address to Congress. During his
speech, the President said:
One thing I have learned about Jocelyn is that she loved
animals so much. She loved nature. Across Galveston Bay from
where Jocelyn lived in Houston, you will find a magnificent
national wildlife refuge. A pristine, peaceful, 34,000-acre
sanctuary for all of God's creatures on the edge of the Gulf of
America.28
On March 7, 2025, Secretary Doug Burgum signed a Secretary's Order
to implement President Trump's E.O.29 H.R. 3179, introduced
by Representative Brian Babin on May 5, 2025, would codify the E.O. to
ensure that this renaming cannot be overturned by a future
administration without Congressional action.
Established in 1963 along the Texas coast of the Gulf of America,
the refuge protects coastal marsh and prairie, providing habitat for
migratory and resident waterfowl, shorebirds, and
waterbirds.30 In addition to serving as a sanctuary, it
offers the public numerous opportunities for fishing, waterfowl
hunting, and wildlife viewing, hosting more than 800,000 visitors a
year.31 The refuge is managed by the USFWS and is part of
the National Wildlife Refuge System.32
IV. MAJOR PROVISIONS & ANALYSIS
H.R. 1885 (Rep. Murphy, R-NC), ``Town of North Topsail Beach Coastal
Barrier Resources System Map Amendment Act of 2025''
Requires the Secretary of the Interior to remove areas of
North Topsail Beach, North Carolina located within CBRA
Unit L06 from the System. According to local zoning
ordinances, areas within Unit L06 are for purposes other
than conservation as of the date of enactment.
H.R. 2294 (Rep. Ezell, R-MS) To reauthorize the Integrated Coastal and
Ocean Observation System Act of 2009.
Reauthorizes NOAA's Integrated Coastal and Ocean
Observation System at existing funding levels from FY 2026
to 2030.
H.R. 2860 (Rep. Larsen, D-WA) ``Northwest Straits Marine Conservation
Initiative Reauthorization Act of 2025''
Reauthorizes the Northwest Straits Advisory Commission at
$10 million for each of FY 2026 to 2031, and then as such
sums for each FY thereafter.
H.R. 3179 (Rep. Babin, R-TX), To rename the Anahuac National Wildlife
Refuge located in the State of Texas as the ``Jocelyn Nungaray
National Wildlife Refuge''
Codifies the renaming of the Anahuac National Wildlife
Refuge to the Jocelyn Nungaray National Wildlife Refuge.
V. EFFECT ON CURRENT LAW (RAMSEYER)
H.R. 2294
https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bill-to-law_-
_h.r._2294.pdf
H.R. 2860
https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/h.r._2860_ramseyer.pdf
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON: H.R. 1885, TOWN OF NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM MAP AMENDMENT ACT OF 2025;
H.R. 2294, TO REAUTHORIZE THE INTEGRATED COASTAL AND OCEAN
OBSERVATION SYSTEM ACT OF 2009; H.R. 2860, NORTHWEST STRAITS
MARINE CONSERVATION INITIATIVE REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2025; AND
H.R. 3179, TO RENAME THE ANAHUAC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
LOCATED IN THE STATE OF TEXAS AS THE JOCELYN NUNGARAY NATIONAL
WILDLIFE REFUGE
----------
Tuesday, May 20, 2025
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries,
Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:55 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Harriet
Hageman.
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Hageman, LaMalfa, Webster,
Walberg, Ezell; Hoyle, Dingell, Min, Elfreth, Rivas, and
Huffman.
Also present: Representatives Babin, Murphy; and Larsen.
Ms. Hageman. The Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and
Fisheries will come to order.
Good morning, everyone. I apologize for being late. I just
got out of a conference meeting, and so I appreciate everyone's
patience.
I want to welcome the members who are here, the witnesses,
and our guests in the audience at today's hearing.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
Under Committee rule 4(f), any oral opening statements and
hearings are limited to the Chair and the Ranking Member. I
therefore ask unanimous consent that all other members' opening
statements be made part of the hearing record if they are
submitted in accordance with Committee rule 3(o).
Without objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that the Congressman from
Texas, Dr. Babin, the Congressman from North Carolina, Dr.
Murphy, be allowed to participate in today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
We are here today to consider four legislative measures:
H.R. 1885, the Town of North Topsail Beach Coastal Barrier
Resources System Map Amendment Act of 2025, sponsored by
Representative Murphy of North Carolina; H.R. 2294, to
reauthorize the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System
Act of 2009, sponsored by Representative Ezell of Mississippi;
H.R. 2860, the Northwest Straits Marine Conservation Initiative
Reauthorization Act of 2025, sponsored by Representative Larsen
of Washington; and H.R. 3179, to rename the Anahuac National
Wildlife Refuge located in the State of Texas as the Jocelyn
Nungaray National Wildlife Refuge, sponsored by Representative
Babin of Texas.
I now recognize myself for a 5-minute opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. HARRIET HAGEMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Ms. Hageman. Today the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and
Fisheries will examine four bills.
Our first bill, sponsored by Congressman Babin, would honor
the life of Jocelyn Nungaray by codifying the renaming of the
Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge in Chambers County, Texas to
the Jocelyn Nungaray National Wildlife Refuge. This is an
exciting day.
It is important to note that just last week the Senate
passed companion legislation by voice vote, and it is my hope
that the House moves quickly to pass this important legislation
to honor Jocelyn. We are honored to have her mother with us
here today.
The second bill, sponsored by Congressman Murphy, promotes
responsible development of coastal communities by fixing errors
made in the administration of the Coastal Barrier Resources
Act, or CBRA, in North Topsail Beach, North Carolina. This
legislation would remove approximately 590 acres of the 5,865
acres that encompasses CBRA Unit L06 in North Topsail Beach.
The areas being removed by this legislation are some of the
most developed areas in the entire CBRA system. And given the
success of CBRA in disincentivizing development elsewhere and
the clear evidence of long-standing full complement of
infrastructure, it is clear these lands should have never been
a part of the CBRA system in the first place. The town of North
Topsail Beach has been working with Congress for many years to
address this issue, and I hope this hearing is a significant
step towards finally coming to a resolution.
The third bill under consideration is sponsored by
Congressman Ezell, and it would reauthorize the Integrated
Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act administered by NOAA.
The Integrated Ocean Observation System, or IOOS, equips local
decision-makers with the most up-to-date science and data,
ensures that coastal communities are protected from and
prepared for disasters, and supports the many industries that
operate in our marine waters.
Our last bill, sponsored by Congressman Larsen,
reauthorizes the Northwest Straits Advisory Commission. The
Commission was first authorized by Congress in 1998 to respond
to public resistance to a national marine sanctuary that was
proposed in the region. Since its creation the Commission has
made efforts to protect and restore marine resources in the
Northwest Straits. Unfortunately, our colleagues across the
aisle have once again decided to ignore one of their own bills.
Ms. Hageman. And with that I want to take time to thank our
witnesses for being here today, and I look forward to a robust
conversation.
I now recognize the Ranking Member for her opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. SARAH ELFRETH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Ms. Elfreth. Thank you, Madam Chair, and while I appreciate
the Subcommittee for considering the bills before us on the
development of coastal communities and reauthorization of
programs at NOAA, there is a much larger and more urgent
conversation this Subcommittee needs to have with the
representatives of the Administration here today on the extreme
overreach of the Executive Branch.
My district is home to the Mid-Atlantic Fish and Wildlife
Office and the Fish and Wildlife Services. The work that these
dedicated civil servants, scientific experts, and leaders in
environmental protection conduct at these sites and around the
Nation is critical not just to my district, but obviously,
ecosystems and communities across this Nation. It is also
required by law. Federal statute clearly outlines the
responsibilities of agencies like Fish and Wildlife to comply
with and implement laws passed by Congress.
Further, Article I of the Constitution makes clear that
Congress holds the power of the purse, and the executive
branch's job is to allocate the funding that Congress duly
appropriates. The framers of the Constitution intended for each
branch to hold a healthy level of distrust with the other
branches of government in order to prevent any concentration of
power in a single branch and to ensure balance of authority. As
such, it is the responsibility of Congress to provide oversight
and accountability to branches that overstep boundaries of
their power. And we have seen this Administration overstep time
and time again.
I am open to having any honest conversation about how we
can collectively make government more effective and efficient
at delivering key services for the American people, but that is
not what is happening in this moment. This Administration has
taken a sledgehammer to agencies without any strategy or reason
when the American people would have been better served by a
scalpel and a clear plan.
In one of his first directives this term, President Trump
ordered a wide-sweeping freeze of Federal funds in January.
This applied to money already appropriated by Congress, which
is, as we have established, well beyond the scope of the
President's authority.
In another executive order the President directed agencies
to eliminate existing grants and deny future applications that
in any way address the very real challenges of climate change
and environmental justice. Some of the funds frozen from the
Department of the Interior under this Administration include
youth conservation programs that provide opportunities for
young people to experience our natural resources hands-on,
invasive species programs that protect habitats and native
species from predatory invasive wildlife, historic preservation
programs that ensure the unique stories of our cultures and
communities are told for generations to come, and the list goes
on full of projects that this Committee and our constituents
care deeply about.
And that is not all. In February the Department of the
Interior unilaterally and illegally fired over 2,000 Federal
employees, including hundreds of civil servants at Fish and
Wildlife. In March, we learned that Interior intends to close
150 field offices across this country, displacing even more
dedicated public servants and irrevocably harming the
Department's ability to do its statutory duties. It was only
when the courts got involved that this Administration and
leaders of Interior were forced to walk back some of those
actions.
Federal courts have made it clear that the executive branch
does not have the power to subvert Congress by freezing funds
or firing Federal civil servants without cause.
So now we must ask ourselves: How is it possible for Fish
and Wildlife to do all of this work, which is required by law,
with a skeleton workforce and nowhere to physically work?
I think everyone here knows that that is not possible, so
this Administration has a decision to make. Do they continue
firing, freezing and restructuring funds and agencies, or will
they fulfill their constitutional obligations to uphold the
law?
I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will
deliver on our shared responsibility to hold the executive
branch accountable and join me in a productive conversation
with this Administration.
Ms. Elfreth. Before I yield back, Madam Chair, if I could
ask unanimous consent that Representative Emily Randall from
Washington and Representative Rick Larsen from Washington have
permission to sit on the dais and participate in today's
hearing.
Ms. Hageman. So ordered.
Ms. Elfreth Thank you. And with that I yield back.
Ms. Hageman. I will now introduce our first panel. And, as
is typical with legislative hearings, the bills' sponsors are
recognized for 5 minutes each to discuss their bills.
Unfortunately, due to several travel complications,
Congressman Ezell is not able to be here this morning, and I
ask unanimous consent for his opening statement to be made part
of the hearing record.
Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Hageman. I now recognize Congressman Murphy for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GREGORY F. MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Dr. Murphy. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you for
allowing me to testify today. This is a statement on H.R. 1885.
I would like to state that sometimes the government makes
mistakes, and it is our job to fix them. This issue is not
about whether coastal land should be developed. It is about
correcting a 43-year-old Federal mapping error made by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. My predecessor tried this for
several years to get this error corrected unsuccessfully. I am
hopeful this Committee will correct this soon.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wrongly designated the
north end of Topsail Island, which comprises the town of North
Topsail Beach, as being in the CBRA system, despite the fact it
was already under development and had a great deal of
infrastructure in the ground already. When areas were
determined for CBRA designations in 1982, aerial pictures were
used to assess the areas under consideration. When the U.S. FWS
utilized aerial photographs of the area now encompassing Unit
L06, they could not determine the underground infrastructure
that was at the site.
According to the town, North Topsail Water and Sewer and
Corporation began constructing, operating, and maintaining
water, sewer, and street treatment in 1979. These
infrastructure improvements were available to each of the lots
in January 15 of 1982 zoning maps. In addition to sewer
systems, reinforced roads, electrical services, and water
systems were in place within L06 by 1982.
My bill would correct this error by taking out a small area
of the CBRA system that is called L06. The amount of acres is
approximately 590 acres.
I want to be clear that we have tried to address concerns
that my Democratic colleagues have had on improving the
language in this version of the bill, which clearly describes
which areas within North Topsail Beach my legislation would
remove.
The town of North Topsail Beach has provided extensive
information about the existence of the infrastructure prior to
the ruling by CBRA. This error wrongly prohibited the town of
North Topsail Beach and many homeowners from accessing Federal
programs, including the National Flood Insurance Program, the
VA Administration loans, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shore
protection projects. So again, the error prevented the citizens
of the town from accessing Federal programs.
And today you hear testimony from my constituent, The
Honorable Mayor Pro Temp Tom Leonard, who will give you a great
deal of information on this matter. The mayor pro temp has
worked on this issue for decades, and is the epitome of a
public servant. He is a retired Marine who has served for 30
years active duty and Reserve duty.
This is about just and fair treatment under the law. Areas
that were already under development when the John Chafee
Coastal Barrier Resource System Law passed in 1982 were not
supposed to be designated within the CBRA system. The Federal
Government made an error within North Topsail Beach, and the
error just needs to be corrected.
Lastly, the Fish and Wildlife Service has visited the site
to see exactly the area that needs to be corrected.
Again, this issue is not about whether coastal land should
be developed; this issue is about righting a wrong made by the
U.S. Government.
I appreciate everyone's consideration, and I am looking
forward to working with you and members of the Committee to
move this bill forward.
Dr. Murphy. Thank you. I will yield back.
Ms. Hageman. I now recognize Congressman Larsen for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RICK LARSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Chair and Ranking Member, for
holding today's hearing and inviting me to provide testimony on
H.R. 2860, the Northwest Straits Marine Conservation Initiative
Reauthorization Act.
I also want to thank my colleague, Representative Emily
Randall, for her work co-leading this bill, as well as Senators
Murray and Cantwell for their partnership in the Senate.
So the Northwest Straits Initiative started as a
bipartisan, homegrown idea. Thanks to the foresight and hard
work of Democratic Senator Patty Murray, former Republican
Representative Jack Metcalf, my predecessor, and local
stakeholders, Congress created the Northwest Straits Marine
Conservation Commission in 1998. The Commission works with
seven county-based Marine Resources Committees, or MRCs, in
northwest Puget Sound. Five of those seven MRCs are in the five
counties that I represent in Northwest Washington State.
Over the past 27 years the Northwest Straits Commission has
done important work to protect and restore the marine ecosystem
of the Northwest Straits Region. This is a bottom-up initiative
completely focused on locally-driven priorities, just as it was
designed 27 years ago. The Commission's work ensures local
communities and Tribes have the resources and expertise that
they need to keep marine habitats healthy and recover
endangered and threatened species, including orcas and salmon.
This this includes working with the Island County MRC to
restore shoreline at Cornet Bay and Hoypus Point; the Whatcom
County MRC to conserve Olympia oysters, the only oyster species
native to the Puget Sound; the San Juan and Skagit MRCs,
Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, local ports, and other
stakeholders to hold vessel recycling and turn-in events before
vessels become derelict or abandoned in Puget Sound; and the
Snohomish County MRC to monitor bull kelp beds and hold
workshops for local communities. These are important plant
species in the Puget Sound that are an indicator of the health
of the water.
Not only does the Northwest Straits Initiative help protect
the Pacific Northwest environment, it also is important to the
State's economy. According to the Commission, the Northwest
States region contributes to 16,000 jobs in Washington's
commercial and recreational fishing industries and $150 million
in economic output for the State's aquaculture industry.
The Commission works closely with ports, local authorities,
State agencies, marine-based businesses, and Tribes on
everything from trapping invasive European green crab that
threatened local shellfish economies to helping boaters
identify and communicate eelgrass locations which are poor
Anchorage sites and important for commercial and recreational
marine species.
Finally, I just want to again reiterate this is crucial,
locally-driven, job-creating work that Congress should continue
to support. The bill, 2680, would permanently reauthorize the
Northwest Straits Initiative and authorize $10 million in
funding annually for the next 5 years. It has bicameral
support. Senators Murray and Cantwell introduced the bill in
the Senate, and the Senate Commerce Committee successfully
marked the bill last month on a bipartisan basis.
So in closing, I want to thank the Subcommittee here and
the staff here, as well as Chair Westerman and Ranking Member
Huffman of the full Committee for working with my office to
reauthorize the Northwest Straits Initiative. I look forward to
working with the Committee on the bill to restore marine
habitat, protect Washington State's environment, and create
more jobs in northwest Washington State.
Mr. Larsen. And with that I yield back.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you, and I now recognize Congressman
Babin for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRIAN BABIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Dr. Babin. On June 17, 2024, Jocelyn, a beautiful, vibrant
12-year-old girl with her whole life ahead of her, was brutally
murdered in north Houston, Texas. This senseless tragedy shook
our community to its very core. Just days later, thanks to the
swift and coordinated efforts of the City of Houston and
Federal law enforcement, several Venezuelan nationals in the
country illegally, suspected members of the violent Tren de
Aragua gang, designated as a foreign terrorist organization,
were apprehended and charged in connection with this heinous
crime. Both men had been released into our homeland because of
the Biden administration's reckless catch-and-release policies.
Joe Biden and Alejandro Mayorkas's open border policies failed
Jocelyn. We cannot allow such a thing to ever happen in this
country again.
In commemoration of Jocelyn's life, President Trump signed
Executive Order 14229 on March the 5th, 2025, directing that
the Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge be renamed to honor
Jocelyn's memory. The legislation before you today will
permanently codify this change into law.
Jocelyn's murder was a devastating reminder of the
consequences of an unsecured border and the duty of the Federal
Government to protect its citizens. Renaming this refuge not
only honors Jocelyn's love for animals and the outdoors also
ensures that her beautiful spirit will live on in a place of
peace and life, a stark contrast to the evil that took her from
us far too soon.
The Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge, located just a short
drive from Jocelyn's hometown of Galveston, is a cherished
habitat for countless species and a beloved destination for
Texans and visitors alike, and naming the refuge after Jocelyn
is a fitting way to honor her love for animals and preserve her
spirit within the Texas landscape that she called home.
Jocelyn's mother, Alexis, is here today over here, I see
her in the corner.
Thank you, Alexis.
She is here today with us. She traveled here all the way
from southeast Texas. Alexis is one of the strongest mothers
that I have ever met. No parent, no person should ever be asked
to go through an ounce of what life has thrown her way. Her
strength in the face of unimaginable loss is why we say,
``Never again. No more innocent lives stolen. No more families
shattered by open borders.'' I was proud to stand with Alexis,
Jocelyn's brother Elias, and other members of Jocelyn's family
at the renaming ceremony for the wildlife refuge hosted in late
April, and I am very proud to be with her here again today.
This bill is about more than renaming a wildlife refuge,
ladies and gentleman. It is about demanding accountability,
restoring order at the border, and putting Americans first. We
must not, we cannot allow another American family to endure
what Jocelyn's family has suffered.
I urge the House to take up H.R. 3179 for a markup, and I
am hopeful the House can pass this bill so that we can swiftly
get it to President Trump's desk.
Dr. Babin. Thank you, and I yield back, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the
Committee, Mr. Huffman, for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank
the witnesses for being here today. I want to just say a few
words about H.R. 1885.
North Topsail beach is really the poster child for the
Coastal Barrier Resources System.
It has one of the highest coastal hazard profiles on the
entire East Coast. More than 97 percent of the town is located
in a FEMA special flood hazard area. It is exactly the kind of
place that should be in CBRA, which is why it has been since
1982. It is the kind of situation that CBRA was created to
address.
CBRA doesn't prohibit development. It is important to
remember that. It simply says taxpayers won't be forced to
subsidize risky development in places that are likely to flood,
erode, and require repeated Federal bailouts, and that policy
has worked. CBRA has saved taxpayers at least $9.5 billion,
with billions more projected in future savings by avoiding
reckless spending in flood-prone areas. It has protected
wildlife habitat, preserved natural storm buffers, and helped
communities build resilience in the face of sea level rise and
intensifying storms.
But despite these safeguards, such as prohibitions on
Federal flood insurance, developers in North Topsail chose to
build homes and businesses in these dangerous areas anyway in a
known, high-risk zone without Federal subsidies. And now, now
as they are facing frequent storms and shoreline retreat,
unfortunately, but maybe not surprisingly, they want to bail
out. And that is what H.R. 1885 is. It would shift the cost of
this risky development onto the backs of Federal taxpayers and,
really, potentially unravel the entire CBRA system.
This bill would remove nearly all land not locally zoned
for conservation from CBRA, undermining the very law Congress
just modernized and strengthened on a bipartisan basis through
the recent BEACH Act. The bill before us today would take us
backward by ignoring science, setting a dangerous precedent,
and sending the wrong message at a time when coastal risks are
only growing.
Next on the agenda H.R. 2294, a bill that would reauthorize
the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System. This is a
vital program that delivers the invaluable data our communities
rely on for everything from emergency preparedness to fisheries
management. This is a bill that has broad bipartisan support,
and for good reason. This program helps to track changing ocean
temperatures, predict harmful algal blooms, monitor sea level
rise, and more.
But the Trump administration's leaked OMB Fiscal Year 2026
budget passback actually proposes dismantling this program.
Regional IOOS systems could be shuttered, and staff are already
being terminated. This would slash our scientific
infrastructure. It is likely illegal, as well, as Congress
specifically authorized IOOS. We should act quickly on this
program before that authorization lapses.
And then we have H.R. 2860, which reauthorizes the
Northwest Straits Marine Conservation Initiative. This
successful program brings Tribes, local governments,
scientists, and volunteers together to restore habitats and
remove derelict fishing gear, protect marine species in
Washington State. It is a shining example of what works, which
is science-based, community-led conservation that delivers
results.
So we definitely see bills reflecting two opposing paths,
one before us that respects science, stewardship, and
ecosystems, and another that would cater to political agendas,
cynical rollbacks, and reckless developments, regardless of
costs or consequences. As we delve into that, let's bear those
contrasts in mind.
Mr. Huffman. And I want to thank the Chair and yield back.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you. I want to thank all of the Members
for their testimony, and I will now introduce the second panel.
Mr. Dave Miko, the Acting Deputy Director for Operations at
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Washington, D.C.
Let me remind the witness that, under Committee rules, you
must limit your oral statement to 5 minutes, but your entire
statement will appear in the hearing record.
To begin your testimony please press the button on the
microphone.
And we use timing lights. When you begin the light will
turn green. When you have 1 minute remaining the light will
turn
yellow. And at the end of the 5 minutes the light will turn
red, and I will ask you to please complete your statements.
I now recognize Mr. Miko for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAVID MIKO, ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS,
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Miko. Thank you and good morning, Chair Hageman,
Representative Elfreth, and members of the Subcommittee. I am
Dave Miko, the Acting Deputy Director for the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. 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. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today and provide the Service's testimony on two bills.
H.R. 1885 would revise the boundaries of a unit of the
Coastal Barrier Resources System in North Topsail Beach, North
Carolina. The system, including the unit in this bill, was
established under the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982, or
CBRA. CBRA restricts certain Federal expenditures like flood
insurance that can encourage risky development on barrier
islands.
Coastal barriers protect communities from storms and
erosion, support jobs in the fishing and recreation industries,
and provide important habitat for fish and wildlife. CBRA
designates relatively undeveloped coastal areas along the
Atlantic, Gulf, and Great Lakes as units of the system. CBRA
does not impose regulatory burdens on landowners in the system.
Landowners can build in accordance with local zoning laws, but
without Federal subsidies. Studies have demonstrated that CBRA
has saved taxpayers billions of dollars and will continue to do
so in the future.
The Service maintains the official maps of the system, and
we periodically make recommendations to Congress to make
changes to unit boundaries. Congress can then adopt or reject
these revised maps through legislation.
H.R. 1885 directs the Service to exclude certain areas from
unit L06 of the system. Specifically, it would exclude each
parcel in the town of North Topsail Beach that is designated by
local zoning ordinances for purposes other than conservation.
The Service estimates that this would remove over 1,000 acres
from unit L06, as well as roughly 600 structures and
potentially hundreds of additional mobile homes and vacant
lots. These areas and structures would then be able to access a
number of Federal subsidies.
The Service appreciates Alderman Leonard's graciousness in
hosting the Service on a tour of the area last year. The
Service values our relationship with local communities where we
work and always appreciate the opportunity to hear firsthand
from them.
Unit L06 has been reviewed by the Service, Congress, and
the courts a number of times since 1982. Notably, in 2018,
Congress enacted modernized maps for unit L06. The maps were
passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump.
H.R. 3179 renames Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge in Texas
to the Jocelyn Nungaray National Wildlife Refuge. This bill
codifies President Trump's executive order to honor Jocelyn,
the 12-year-old girl from Houston whose life was tragically cut
short in June 2024.
I know we are joined today by Jocelyn's mother, Alexis, and
I want to extend my condolences to Alexis, her family, and all
those who knew and loved Jocelyn. I am deeply sorry for your
loss.
Jocelyn is remembered by her friends and family for her
kindness, her empathy, and zeal for life, as well as for her
love for animals. She was especially passionate about ensuring
that animals had natural homes in which to live. The
President's action to honor Jocelyn's memory is fitting, as
this wildlife refuge provides important habitat for a wide
variety of fish and wildlife species. The refuge protects more
than 39,000 acres of pristine coastal marsh and prairie. It is
a sanctuary for waterfowl and shorebirds. It supports huge
flocks of migrating snow geese, and it hosts more than 800,000
visitors a year, providing excellent recreational
opportunities. It is a place where Americans of all ages can
immerse themselves in nature and make lasting memories on our
Nation's public lands.
H.R. 3179 would enshrine the name of Jocelyn Nungaray
National Wildlife Refuge in law. The service supports H.R. 3179
which ensures the refuge will remain a tribute to Jocelyn's
life and a place where her memory can live on with dignity and
peace.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Miko follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Miko, Acting Deputy Director for
Operations, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior
Good morning, Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Hoyle, and members of
the Subcommittee. My name is Dave Miko, and I am the Acting Deputy
Director for Operations at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service). Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony on
the following legislation: H.R. 1885, Town of North Topsail Beach
Coastal Barrier Resources System Map Amendment Act of 2025; and H.R.
3179, To rename the Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge located in the
State of Texas as the ``Jocelyn Nungaray National Wildlife Refuge''.
H.R. 1885, Town of North Topsail Beach Coastal Barrier Resources System
Map Amendment Act of 2025
H.R. 1885, Town of North Topsail Beach Coastal Barrier Resources
System Map Amendment Act of 2025, would revise the boundaries of a unit
(Unit L06) of the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System
(CBRS) in North Topsail Beach, North Carolina.
CBRS Background
The CBRS was established under the Coastal Barrier Resources Act
(CBRA) of 1982, which designated privately-owned areas along the
Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of America coasts as units of the CBRS. CBRA
does not impose any regulatory burden on landowners in the CBRS.
However, most new federal expenditures and financial assistance,
including federal flood insurance, are prohibited in CBRS units.
Congress' stated objectives in enacting CBRA were to save lives, save
taxpayer dollars, and restrict new federal expenditures and financial
assistance in coastal barrier habitat, using a free-market approach to
conservation. Coastal barriers and associated wetlands protect inland
coastal communities from erosion and coastal storms and support
American jobs in the fishing, recreation, and outdoor tourism
industries. They are important spawning, nursery, nesting, and feeding
habitat for fish and wildlife.
As President Reagan noted upon signing CBRA into law, ``This
legislation will enhance both wise natural resource conservation and
fiscal responsibility. It will save American taxpayers millions of
dollars while, at the same time, taking a major step forward in the
conservation of our magnificent coastal resources,'' adding that
``[CBRA] will not prohibit a property owner from building on his
property, and it will not impose federally mandated duties on State or
local governments. Instead, it simply adopts the sensible approach that
risk associated with new private development in these sensitive areas
should be borne by the private sector, not underwritten by the American
taxpayer.''
Multiple studies have since demonstrated that CBRA is effective at
meeting these objectives. A 2019 study found that CBRA reduced federal
coastal disaster expenditures by $9.5 billion between 1989 and 2013 and
forecasted that additional savings will range between $11 and $108
billion by 2068 (in 2016 dollars). A 2024 study found that the CBRS
significantly reduces flood claims to the National Flood Insurance
Program, generating an estimated savings to the federal government of
an additional $930 million per year.
The Service is responsible for administering CBRA, including
maintaining and updating the official maps of the CBRS, making
recommendations to Congress for changes to the boundaries, and
consulting with federal agencies that propose to spend funds within the
CBRS under the exceptions provided in CBRA. It is the purview of
Congress to consider and adopt, where it chooses to, the Service's
recommended map revisions into law. Since the passage of the original
CBRA in 1982, Congress has adopted CBRS maps produced by the Service a
number of times through legislation, expanding the CBRS and improving
the accuracy of maps. Today, the CBRS is comprised of 3.8 million acres
of coastal barrier land and associated aquatic habitat along the
Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of America, Great Lakes, U.S. Virgin Islands, and
Puerto Rico coasts.
H.R. 1885 and Unit L06
Under H.R. 1885, the Secretary of the Interior would be required to
update the existing maps to exclude from Unit L06 of the CBRS each
parcel in the Town of North Topsail Beach, North Carolina, that is
designated by local zoning ordinance for purposes other than
conservation as of the date of enactment. The Service estimates that if
this legislation were enacted it would remove 1,087 acres (516 acres of
``uplands'' and 571 acres of wetlands) from this CBRS unit. This
constitutes 70 percent of the uplands within Unit L06. The bill would
remove approximately 600 structures and potentially hundreds of
additional mobile homes/travel trailers from the CBRS designation and
many vacant lots. These areas and structures would then be able to
access a number of federal subsidies.
The designation of Unit L06 has been thoroughly reviewed by the
Service, Congress, and the Judicial Branch a number of times in the
past, including adoption of revised maps, and multiple public review
and comment periods. This includes:
1982--Unit L06 was established by the enactment of CBRA in
1982. The original CBRS maps, including Unit L06, were
developed following a years-long process involving reviews
of aerial photography, on-the-ground inspections, public
information sessions, and two comment periods.
Mid 1982-1985--Following a lawsuit over the designation of
Unit L06, the District Court decided in favor of the
federal government in 1984. After the case was appealed,
the lower court's decision was upheld in 1985.
1990--As part of a CBRA reauthorization effort, all the
CBRS units, including Unit L06, were reviewed again by the
Department of the Interior (Department), including a public
comment period, in the mid-1980s. Congress then reaffirmed
and expanded Unit L06 with new maps in 1990 when it
reauthorized CBRA.
2016-2018--The Service reviewed Unit L06 as part of a
pilot project directed by Congress to assess modernizing
the CBRS maps. The pilot project, which was subject to
public review and comment, produced revised modernized maps
for Unit L06 that were transmitted to Congress in 2016 and
then adopted by Congress via the Strengthening Coastal
Communities Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-358), signed into law
by President Trump on December 21, 2018. These maps made
appropriate technical corrections to address mapping errors
(removing about 78 structures from the CBRS) and added
approximately 170 qualifying acres to the CBRS (mostly
wetlands).
2024--To correct a minor technical error in one of the
maps of Unit L06, the Service produced a revised map that
was enacted as part of the Bolstering Ecosystems Against
Coastal Harm Act (Pub. L. 118-117).
As a general practice, the Service does not recommend removal of
areas from the CBRS unless there is clear and compelling evidence that
a technical mapping error led to their inclusion within the CBRS, in
line with House Report 97-841 Part 1. The Service recognizes that while
it is our responsibility under CBRA to maintain the official maps and
conduct technical reviews, it is Congress' purview to adopt or reject
revised maps through the legislative process.
The Service notes as a technical matter that while H.R. 1885 refers
to one Unit L06 map, effective implementation would require updates to
two L06 maps. However, we note that many roads and open water areas
within the town that are not individually parceled would remain in the
CBRS. Additionally, due to the provision in H.R. 1885 stating that the
bill applies only to areas of the Unit that are within the municipality
of the Town of North Topsail Beach, there are some private residential
properties (including structures) and other areas in unincorporated
Onslow County that would also remain within the Unit.
H.R. 3179, To rename the Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge located in
the State of Texas as the ``Jocelyn Nungaray National Wildlife
Refuge''
H.R. 3179 renames the Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) in
Texas to the Jocelyn Nungaray National Wildlife Refuge. Jocelyn
Nungaray was a 12-year-old girl from Houston, Texas, whose life was
tragically cut short in June 2024. She is remembered by her friends and
family for her kindness, empathy, and zeal for life, as well as her
love for animals. She was especially passionate about ensuring that
animals had natural homes in which to thrive.
To honor Jocelyn's memory, on March 4, 2025, President Trump signed
Executive Order 14229, ``Honoring Jocelyn Nungaray,'' directing the
Department to rename the Refuge in Jocelyn's name. Secretary of the
Interior Doug Burgum signed Secretary's Order 3425 on March 7, 2025, to
provide further implementation instructions to the Service. The Service
has since updated maps, signage, and documentation to reflect the name
change. On April 24, 2025, Secretary Burgum and Service leadership were
honored to join Jocelyn's loved ones, Governor Abbott, and Congressman
Babin at a ceremony officially dedicating the Refuge as the Jocelyn
Nungaray National Wildlife Refuge.
The Refuge is a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System, a
national network of lands and waters that conserves fish, wildlife,
plants, and their habitats for the benefit of present and future
generations. For more than 60 years, the Refuge has served as a haven
for wildlife and people along the Texas coast of the Gulf of America,
making it a fitting tribute to Jocelyn and her love for animals. It
protects approximately 39,000 acres of pristine coastal marsh and
prairie, providing a sanctuary for migratory and resident waterfowl,
shorebirds, and waterbirds. It supports huge flocks of migrating snow
geese, sometimes numbering more than 80,000. The Refuge also hosts more
than 800,000 visitors a year and provides excellent opportunities for
fishing, waterfowl hunting, paddling, and wildlife watching. It is a
place where Americans of all ages can immerse themselves in nature and
make lasting memories on our nation's public lands.
H.R. 3179 would codify Executive Order 14229 and enshrine the name
of the Jocelyn Nungaray National Wildlife Refuge in law. The Service
supports H.R. 3179, which ensures the Refuge will remain a tribute to
Jocelyn's life and a place where her memory can live on with dignity
and peace.
Conclusion
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 by the Hon. Doug LaMalfa to
Mr. David Miko, Acting Deputy Director of Operations, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior
Mr. Miko did not submit responses to the Committee by the appropriate
deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Question 1. We are continually faced with infrastructure changes
(such as removing dams, putting fish ladders in, and other fish passage
measures.) We are often told that hatchery fish are regularly not
included, or their populations are not counted for meeting fish
population goals at those sites.
What is the difference between hatchery fish and regular fish? Is
there a qualitative difference between the hatchery fish and fish that
would naturally be in that particular river?
When Fish and Wildlife studies fish populations for river health,
dam removal, or other goals where or how do hatchery fish factor into
that equation compared to non-hatchery fish?
Is there a weighting process for population numbers, are the
hatchery fish in that system counted the same as fish already in the
system? Do they count 1:1?
Question 2. In 2020, the Trump administration finalized a rule that
delisted the gray wolf, except for the Mexican wolf, and returned
management to each of the lower 48 states. There is broad support for
this move across parties and from Congress. We need wolf delisting, and
we need it as soon as possible.
Can you provide insight into the possible wolf delisting efforts
and timelines and if the Service plans to recommend delisting?
Do you have clear recovery numbers for the wolf populations and
benchmarks for population targets?
______
Questions Submitted for the Record by the Hon. Jared Huffman to
Mr. David Miko, Acting Deputy Director of Operations, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior
Mr. Miko did not submit responses to the Committee by the appropriate
deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Regarding the administration proposal to transfer Protected
Resources from NOAA to DOI:
Question 1. Are you aware that Congress assigned specific
responsibilities to the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the
Interior in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA)?
1a) Are you aware that Congress has not authorized the Secretary of
the Interior to implement portions of the MMPA and ESA that have been
assigned to the Secretary of Commerce?
Question 2. Will Interior be prepared to handle the transfer of
protected resources from NMFS to DOI without new resources or staff?
2a) Will the Administration transfer personnel to cover such
transferred responsibilities?
Question 3. Will the Administration transfer funding from NOAA to
Department of Interior (DOI) to cover the additional costs associated
with the additional responsibilities?
3a) If so, when does the Administration plan to start transferring
funding?
Question 4. Given Interior's current staffing levels and budget,
how does the Department plan to absorb additional ESA and MMPA
responsibilities without receiving new resources or congressional
appropriations?
Question 5. Is this an action that the Administration plans to
carry out without Congressional authorization or approval?
5a) If so, when 5does the Administration plan to start transferring
functions?
Regarding H.R. 1885:
Question 6. Would removing Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS)
protection invite further development in high-risk zones and increase
future demands on the Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA, and National Flood
Insurance program? Please provide examples of the federal investments
anticipated if HR 1885 is enacted.
Definition of Harm Rescission:
Question 1. Do you agree that the Endangered Species Act protects
endangered and threatened species against harm?
Question 2. Does it harm a wild animal to destroy the place where
it lives?
Question 3. Congress created a robust permitting system in the
Endangered Species Act to allow economic activities that may
incidentally take listed species go forward so long as that take is
minimized and mitigated. This permitting system provides regulatory
certainty to permittees. Won't rescinding the definition of harm sow
confusion here for businesses and interfere with the incidental take
permitting system that Congress created?
Consultations:
Question 1. Given the unprecedented mass firings and retirements,
how does the Service plan to handle consultations moving forward? Won't
the lack of staff substantially delay consultations?
God Squad:
Question 1. Globally, how many species are at risk of extinction?
Question 2. The president has put out an executive order to attempt
to increase the use of the `God Squad.' How many projects can you
identify that have resulted in a jeopardy opinion with no reasonable
and prudent alternative over the last 10 years? Please provide a list
to the Committee.
Question 3. What is the actual need for the use of the `God Squad'
when there is arguably zero evidence that the ESA halts federal
projects and permits in their tracks?
______
Questions Submitted for the Record by the Hon. Adam Gray to
Mr. David Miko, Acting Deputy Director of Operations, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior
Mr. Miko did not submit responses to the Committee by the appropriate
deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Question 1: Mr. Miko, how can Congress work with both President
Trump and Governor Newsom, who have each issued their own Executive
Order on California water, to prevent overreach?
Question 2: In the final days of the Biden Administration the EPA
settled a lawsuit with an environmental litigant regarding Phase 1 of
Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan in California which triggered ESA
consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service, along with the
National Marine Fisheries Service. What is the status of this and the
status of your agency's efforts?
______
Questions Submitted for the Record by the Hon. Sarah Elfreth to
Mr. David Miko, Acting Deputy Director of Operations, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior
Mr. Miko did not submit responses to the Committee by the appropriate
deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Question 1. How many employees have been fired, laid off, put on
administrative leave, or taken the ``fork in the road'' resignation
payout from the Fish and Wildlife Service since January 20, 2025?
Question 2. Has the Fish and Wildlife Service completed the
Reduction in Force and restructuring plans required by the
Administration? If so, please attach a copy for Congressional review
and oversight.
Question 3. Has the Administration, the Secretary of the Interior,
or your superiors at the Fish and Wildlife Service provided guidance on
policies and procedures for the reinstatement of wrongfully terminated
employees ordered to be reinstated by the courts? If so, what guidance
was provided to you and by whom?
Question 4. How many Fish and Wildlife Service offices does the
Department of Interior intend to close and how many staffing positions
have been cut from local and regional field offices?
Question 5. You stated that the Fish and Wildlife Service is in the
process of hiring staff to work on invasive species mitigation.
However, this Administration has ordered a federal hiring freeze. With
this freeze in place, are you able to hire necessary staff, permanent
or seasonal? If so, how many does the Fish and Wildlife Service
anticipate hiring by the end of 2025?
Question 6. What specific challenges are permit seekers and federal
partners facing due to reductions in FWS Ecological Services staffing,
particularly in field offices?
Question 7. How does the ongoing reduction in field biologists and
permitting staff align with the Administration's stated goal of
streamlining permitting and improving regulatory consistency?
Question 8. What is the current average processing time for Habitat
Conservation Plans (HCPs), listing petitions under Section 4, and
interagency consultations under Section 7 and 10? How does this compare
to the average time frames in FY24?
Question 9. Given the significant staffing reductions, does the
Service believe it can still meet the scientific integrity and
statutory deadlines laid out in the National Listing Workplan?
Question 10. Are there currently any active plans or internal
discussions at the Service to mitigate delays in permit processing, HCP
development, or ESA consultations caused by staffing losses? If so,
please share the plan.
Question 11. Which specific Fish and Wildlife Service grant
programs are being eliminated or consolidated under the FY26 budget
proposal? Please provide a list with FY25 funding levels for each
program.
Question 12. Have ongoing project delays contributed to confusion
or frustration among developers, permittees, or conservation
stakeholders relying on timely decisions from the Service?
Question 13. Does the reduced staffing capacity compromise the
Service's ability to uphold scientific rigor, particularly in peer-
reviewed status assessments and recovery planning?
______
Questions Submitted for the Record by the Hon. Debbie Dingell to
Mr. David Miko, Acting Deputy Director of Operations, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior
Mr. Miko did not submit responses to the Committee by the appropriate
deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
The Commission pays for the implementation of the program by
passing Congressionally provided money to the USFWS for habitat and
lamprey control programming. Sounds simple enough, yet it seems that
the USFWS levies a 22% overhead cost on this program for administrative
purposes, despite the Commission already handling the administrative
work.
Question 1. Mr. Miko, how can Region 5 justify this additional cost
given that the Commission already pays for administration? Can you
provide me with a detailed listing of precisely what you do with this
22%?
Question 2. Mr. Miko, in the 2025 House Report Language, thanks to
Representative Stefanik, Region 5 received $1million for sea lamprey
control intended to match the GLFC's contribution on Lake Champlain.
Will you confirm that the USFWS will direct at least this $1 million to
the Region for this purpose in 2025?
______
Questions Submitted for the Record by the Hon. Julia Brownley to
Mr. David Miko, Acting Deputy Director of Operations, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior
Mr. Miko did not submit responses to the Committee by the appropriate
deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Question 1. Has the Service tracked the number of overdue
Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing determinations, critical habitat
designations, and five-year reviews over the past five months?
1a) How has that backlog changed since the February 14 staff
terminations?
Question 2. With fewer listing and recovery experts at FWS, how
will agencies assess species decline across their range?
Question 3. Now that many recovery teams have been disbanded or
frozen, what steps is the Service taking to uphold accountability,
transparency, and progress toward recovery plans outlined in finalized
recovery plans?
Question 4. Will the Service meet statutory deadlines or produce
scientifically credible Species Status Assessments under current
staffing levels?
4a) Are these assessments still undergoing rigorous peer review?
Question 5. Is it true that FWS has lost ?50% of its Information
for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) team?
5a) If so, how many positions were lost, and how many remain?
5b) How is the loss affecting permit reviews, developer guidance,
and Section 7 consultations?
Question 6. Are you aware of the loss of field technicians
impacting recovery programs for Mexican Gray Wolf, Red Wolf, Black-
Footed Ferret, or Northern Spotted Owl?
6a) Please provide a list of field activities (population
monitoring, captive releases, habitat management) that have been paused
or canceled because of staff terminations, early retirements, fork-in-
the road resignations, and other programs reducing staff since January
20, 2025.
Question 7. Is the agency currently tracking missed or delayed
recovery actions under finalized recovery plans? How many actions are
overdue?
______
Ms. Hageman. Thank you for your testimony, and I will now
recognize members for 5 minutes each for questioning. I am
going to start with Mr. Miko.
Dr. Babin's legislation helps to highlight the importance
of the National Wildlife Refuge System itself. However, we know
the refuge system faces serious management challenges. Last
Congress the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was granted Good
Neighbor Authority to help better manage the refuge system.
However, the authority was lumped in under the existing Good
Neighbor Authority. The authority for the Service was lumped in
under the existing Good Neighbor Authority with the BLM and the
Forest Service. Could you outline for the Subcommittee how
specifically tailoring Good Neighbor Authority to fit the
Service's unique needs would help better manage the refuge
system?
Mr. Miko. Yes. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question,
and we certainly appreciate the inclusion of the Good Neighbor
Authority for the Service, and it provides us additional tools
in our toolbox to work closely with our partners or key
constituents in our wildland fire work and, in enhancing and
protecting habitats in our National refuge system.
We have some needs for some clarity in the legislation, in
the language, to help us better understand the direction and to
utilize the tools in that toolbox to put conservation on the
ground and would appreciate an opportunity and support an
opportunity to work closely--with the Committee.
Ms. Hageman. But there are some tweaks that need to be made
to make it so that it works better for the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Is that fair?
Mr. Miko. That is fair.
Ms. Hageman. All right. What is this Administration doing
to increase hunting and fishing access in the refuge system?
And will providing greater access to hunters and anglers be
a priority going forward?
Mr. Miko. Yes, thanks for the follow-up question on our
refuge system and its opportunities to provide access for
fishing and hunting and other recreation opportunities that we
know is a high priority for this Administration. And we
appreciate the opportunity to utilize our 573 wildlife refuge
systems, as well as the 72 national fish hatcheries to allow
access for hunting and angling and other opportunities for
recreation on those lands.
We recently published our Hunt Fish Rule that we publish
every year that opens up opportunities across our system and,
across the country to allow hunter, and angler access, and
other bird-watching types of activities.
Ms. Hageman. Was there an announcement made just last week
along those lines about how to increase the access for hunting
and fishing?
Mr. Miko. Yes, there was.
Ms. Hageman. OK. And who made that announcement?
Mr. Miko. I am not absolutely positive on who made the
actual announcement of that, Congresswoman.
Ms. Hageman. But it came out of your office.
Mr. Miko. Correct, it did.
Ms. Hageman. And could you explain just a little bit more
about it?
Mr. Miko. We go through about an 18-month process to work
with the communities, and through the refuge system to identify
additional opportunities, for hunting and angling and other
recreational opportunities that fit within the refuge system.
That process goes through a public comment period. We receive
that public comment back, we review those comments, and then
make recommendations to open up those lands.
Ms. Hageman. OK. In light of this Administration taking
actions around the Jocelyn Nungaray National Wildlife Refuge,
how is the Service working to encourage youth visitation to the
refuge system?
Mr. Miko. So the Service certainly respects and cherishes
our position, and our unique position to allow access and
provide opportunities for youth to engage in recreation and
conservation on and across our refuge system. We host about 69
million visitors nationwide annually on our wildlife refuge
system. The Jocelyn Nungaray National Wildlife Refuge itself
receives about 800,000 visitors.
We have specific programs that engage youth, including our
Youth Game Warden program that introduce teens to the interest
of conservation law enforcement. That refuge also sponsors the
Junior Duck Stamp Program, which introduced youths K through 12
to migratory bird conservation through art and science.
Ms. Hageman. OK. Well, thank you for that.
And with that I yield back, and I now call on Ms. Elfreth
for 5 minutes of questioning.
Ms. Elfreth. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Miko. First of all, I want to start and say
thank you for, I believe, 30 years of service to our Nation,
and I appreciate that.
I also want to take a moment and thank everybody at Fish
and Wildlife, those who are still there and those who were,
frankly, illegally terminated by this Administration. I want to
just say to them that I see you and I appreciate you.
I want to talk a little bit about some of the firings and
then move on to some of the closures. And I am really glad for
this long-overdue discussion, particularly because a number of
members of this Subcommittee have sent letters requesting
responses, and I just want to highlight that we are still
awaiting many of those responses. So please be more responsive
so we can endeavor to do this work together.
So I will start. This Administration has fired hundreds of
thousands of civil servants across the Federal Government. And
at Fish and Wildlife we believe the number is around 400
employees in February. And as I mentioned, there is an
intention to close 150 field offices. Congress has not been
informed on the official number of civil servants terminated,
nor have we been consulted on the mass closures of those
offices. And I believe, based on the Chair's remarks, we share
a common goal to make sure that Fish and Wildlife is there for
our constituents and has every access opportunity for our
constituents to enjoy the refuge system, everything that
taxpayer dollars have invested in.
So can you tell me how many employees have been fired, laid
off, put on administrative leave, which means they are being
paid by taxpayers but not working, or taken the fork-in-the-
road resignation payout from Fish and Wildlife since January
20?
Mr. Miko. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question.
What I can share is that the Fish and Wildlife Service is
working hard to implement the desires of the Administration to
lean into becoming a more effective and efficient organization.
We have, as you mentioned, 30 years of experience in civil
service throughout my career, and I can say to you that I have
never seen a more dedicated group of Federal employees at the
Fish and Wildlife Service that come to work every day to lean
into the work, to meet the mission of the agency, to meet the
Administration's priorities, and we stand ready to continue to
do so.
Ms. Elfreth. And I believe all agencies were required to
submit reduction in force or restructuring plans. Assuming this
was done for Fish and Wildlife, when do you intend to consult
Congress and this Subcommittee on those plans?
Mr. Miko. Yes, I appreciate the follow-up question.
Given my newness to the position as Acting Deputy Director,
I have not been involved in those conversations.
Ms. Elfreth. OK. I would suggest that it is impossible for
the Subcommittee to exercise its oversight role without that
coordination and cooperation, so I would ask that we dig into
that.
Thankfully, our judicial branch has stepped in to reinstate
many of these employees who were illegally fired. But again,
unfortunately, Congress has not been provided any information
from this Administration on the number of impacted Federal
employees.
There has also, we understand, been some pretty
contradictory emails sent to employees from nameless Federal
officials that contain typos and conflicting instructions on
when to show up, not show up, whether they be on administrative
leave and paid, whether they can keep paying their mortgages,
for instance.
So has this Administration or the Secretary of the Interior
or your superiors at Fish and Wildlife provided guidance on
policies and procedures for the reinstatement of wrongfully-
terminated employees that have been ordered to be reinstated
from these courts?
What kind of clear directions have been given to folks who
were illegally terminated?
Mr. Miko. So we have been following court orders to
reinstate the probationary employees, and brought those
employees back into employment with the Fish and Wildlife
Service as directed.
Ms. Elfreth. And will we be honoring their service to date,
or are we requiring them to start their clocks anew on their
probationary status?
Mr. Miko. To be honest, I would have to check with the HR.
I don't understand the details of those.
Ms. Elfreth. OK, I would greatly appreciate a follow-up to
that.
Mr. Miko. I am happy to follow up.
Ms. Elfreth. Thank you. And then lastly, I want to touch on
just the great work that your field offices do, particularly as
they are public-facing and front-facing, much like our district
offices back home in our districts. These field offices play a
critical role in land conservation, endangered species
protection, issuing permits for hunting and fishing, supporting
the health of our fisheries nationwide.
But I understand, again, your goal of closing 150 field
offices without consultation to this Congress or this
Committee. So how can you assure me or us that you can fulfill
your mission, particularly on the public side, by closing 150
field offices?
Mr. Miko. I thank you for your follow-up and, again, I
appreciate your concern.
We have got, again, a very dedicated staff working to
become a more efficient, more effective organization to deliver
on the mission and the priorities of this Administration.
Ms. Elfreth. But if people have to travel hundreds or
thousands of miles to actually take advantage of the services
their taxpayer dollars are paying for, I am confused as to how
you can fulfill your mission by closing those field offices.
Madam Chair, I want to say I would look forward to
continuing this conversation at some point. And with that I
yield back.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mrs.
Dingell for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start by
thanking the Chair for including H.R. 2294 as part of today's
hearing. This bill, which I am a proud original co-sponsor of,
will reauthorize the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation
System. And I want to thank my friends and colleagues,
Representatives Ezell and Bonamici, for leading on this
important issue.
The Integrated Ocean Observing System, or IOOS, is a part
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or, as
we call it, NOAA. It is an integrated network of 11 federally
certified regional associations that observe America's ocean,
coasts, and Great Lakes. One of the IOOS's regional
associations, the Great Lakes Observing System, or GLOS, is
based in my district in Ann Arbor. GLOS conducts critical work,
including protecting the public from harmful algae blooms and
providing important weather forecast data to keep boaters safe,
to delivering essential information about the broader Great
Lakes ecosystem.
NOAA's IOOS is one of the many incredible institutions
working to strengthen our understanding of the Great Lakes and
protect them, and that is why I am disappointed that someone
from NOAA is not in attendance today to speak to NOAA's
important work and why the Administration's decisions are so
alarming. I know I am not alone in my serious concerns with the
Administration's plans to gut the agency, and the impact that
this will have on the Great Lakes. I believe we must be doing
all we can to support the Great Lakes. It is more than 20
percent of the fresh water in the world.
So having said that, I want to take the opportunity to
discuss another entity that is critical to the region, the
Great Lakes Fishery Commission. The Great Lakes Fishery
Commission is a binational commission made up of
representatives from the United States and Canada to
effectively manage and protect the Great Lakes. In particular,
the Commission coordinates and funds a program to manage sea
lamprey, which is a parasitic fish that has invaded the Great
Lakes system. And the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service implements
the program in the Great Lakes. If left unchecked, the
continued growth of sea lamprey would devastate our fish
populations and threaten species that are vital to both the
natural environment and the livelihoods of those who rely on
fishing in the Great Lakes.
However, since February 14, the Administration has created
several challenges to the effective execution of the control
program, including demands to fire, not hire, and then to
recall several key personnel at the Fish and Wildlife Service
required for implementing the program. Consequently, and this
is serious, the sea lamprey control program has been left
reeling, and it is now behind schedule.
So Mr. Miko, how has the Interior Department consulted with
the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to ensure staffing
disruptions would not delay the implementation of the vital sea
lamprey program?
And can you confirm that staffing decisions were taken only
after consulting with your partner, the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission, who coordinates and pays for the program?
Mr. Miko. Thank you for your question, Congresswoman, and I
absolutely understand and appreciate the concern and
seriousness of sea lamprey control. As a member of Pennsylvania
and a Great Lakes State, I understand the impact that sea
lamprey can certainly have on those populations.
We have great relationship with the Great Lakes Fisheries
Commission. They are a wonderful partner and support us in the
work that we do. I am happy to report that we are in the
process of hiring our seasonal employees to institute the sea
lamprey control program, and are looking forward to meeting our
goals for treatment this year.
Mrs. Dingell. So you promise me you are going to meet those
goals?
Mr. Miko. We are working very hard to hire our staff, and
are looking forward to meeting those goals.
Mrs. Dingell Can you tell me, Mr. Miko, how the Interior
Department is ensuring that staff firings will not result in
the loss of critical expertise in implementing the control
program?
Mr. Miko. So I appreciate that, and I don't know the
details with respect to individuals' expertise within region 3
of the Fish and Wildlife Service. But once again, I assure you
that we are working hard to hire those staff and maintain the
delivery and expectations and goals of that program.
Mrs. Dingell. Madam Chair, I have more questions but not
enough time to ask them, so I am going to, if I can, submit
questions for the record.
Mrs. Dingell. And I am really going to tell you these sea
lamprey could destroy our Great Lakes. So it is really
important that we continue to manage them.
So thank you, and I yield back.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Representative. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. LaMalfa for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Madam Chair, I appreciate it.
Welcome, Mr. Miko. I am glad to be able to speak with you
today. I wanted to take it in a little different direction
here, too, as well, with the gray wolf situation we have in
Northern California since their introduction here. I have a
couple of thoughts on that, too.
First, this isn't even the wolf that would have at one time
been native here, a Canadian gray wolf. Can you explain to me
how they have decided that using whatever wolf that is
available and plugging them into these various regions, whether
it is Northern California or Colorado or other areas where the
evidence in the past showed it wasn't even this type of wolf,
but instead a much bigger, stronger, more deadly wolf, how was
the decision made to just introduce whatever wolf is available
instead of something that would have been closer to what might
have been native at one time?
Mr. Miko. Yes, thank you for your question, Congressman.
And unfortunately, my background and my work with the Service
up until 4 weeks ago was within the Fish and Aquatic
Conservation Program. Those decisions were made before my role
as Acting Deputy Director.
Mr. LaMalfa. Is that something you might be able to track
down a little bit, and submit to this Committee at a later
time? Would you mind doing that?
Mr. Miko. I would be happy to reach out to our Federal
experts and get back with you and your staff.
Mr. LaMalfa. All right. I do appreciate that. Because it
has been a pretty big loser for the people and the populations
that are up there. The wildlife are being devastated.
I mean, I could show you graphic pictures right here. I
don't have a poster of them, but from a distance it shows an
elk having been killed right at someone's edge of their
building on their property. And just the back end of the elk
just eaten out. It was a horrible death for that elk.
And right here, here is somebody's front door. This is
their front porch right here, where evidently, an elk must have
been seeking respite from humans because of how it must have
felt in danger there, killed right on there and drug off, right
on someone's front porch.
It is not playing well in my part of the State, nor, I
think, for Colorado. I will let those colleagues speak for
that.
So a delisting needs to move forward rapidly. We have tens
of thousands of the same gray wolf in upper Midwest States and
Canada. It is not like the wolf is endangered by any common-
sense measurement.
Let me shift to fish populations for a moment here. The
Klamath River in the northern part of my district, as well, we
faced a long-time onslaught on four hydroelectric dams that
make clean, CO2-free green power being on the hit
list, and finally they got their way here last year of those
dams being removed.
But during the time, there had been a successful hatchery
downstream of those four dams that introduced many millions of
fish. So what we are often faced with is that the departments
and agencies are not counting those hatchery fish for meeting
fish population goals at these or other sites, and even other
types of fish for, in this case, these salmon.
So what is the difference between hatchery fish and regular
fish in the eyes of the agency?
Mr. Miko. I appreciate that question, Congressman.
Hatchery fish are brought on station or spawned on station
in support and to supplement wild populations. The Service does
its very best to maintain genetic vigor, or the fish's ability
to survive in the wild through a broad genetic management plan.
But oftentimes those fish that are raised and produced in
facilities are inferior at this point to wild fish, and do not
survive as easily or as readily in the wild as hatchery fish.
Mr. LaMalfa Interesting, because they have captured wild
fish in the past, and harvested the eggs from those fish, and
then they have simply just propagated those eggs so they have a
much higher ratio of success of hatch and raised up to an age
where they have a better shot at getting down the river and
returning to the ocean and then coming back later. Why would
that be seen as inferior?
Mr. Miko. Yes, I can appreciate the follow-up. I would have
to really get back with staff and understand the full
differences between those genetic challenges that we face.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. So when the hatchery or any fish are
returned, I don't know how they tell the difference when it
comes back up, are they not weighted as counting as a fish?
Is it a one-to-one ratio, somehow they can discern the
difference between the wild fish and hatchery fish if they
return from the ocean? Are they counted equally?
Mr. Miko. We are able to tell the difference. We tag,
through a tagging program, fish that are reproduced at
hatcheries and released into the water.
Mr. LaMalfa. They are tagging millions of fish.
Mr. Miko. We are tagging millions of fish.
Mr. LaMalfa. How long does that take?
Mr. Miko. I don't have the exact dates on those. We use
tagging units that tag millions of fish daily.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, OK. I don't know why they need to be
tagged. A returning fish is a returning fish. Same species,
genetically no difference. It almost sounds like a setup
designed to fail on counting populations and what a successful
population recovery looks like.
So with that I am over time, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Rivas
for 5 minutes of questioning.
Ms. Rivas. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Miko, thank you for what you do to manage fish and
wildlife resources and public trust for people today and for
future generations. I am incredibly worried about how recent
cuts from Trump and Musk's DOGE efforts, coupled with
legislation like H.R. 1885, will put more people into harm's
way and impact our future generations' ability to enjoy our
wildlife and coastal resources.
Can you discuss how increased development along our coast
can lead to the destruction of our ecosystems and increase the
rate of climate change?
Mr. Miko. So I appreciate the question. I am not an expert
in coastal barrier restoration efforts, and in those processes
that are put in place.
We do know that coastal resources provide habitat for fish
and wildlife, and benefit inland communities from storm surges.
I apologize, but I would be happy to get back to you with more
details on that question.
Ms. Rivas. OK, great. So my district, and like many others,
have seen firsthand how climate change and climate disasters
can impact communities and take years to rebuild. In Los
Angeles we recently had two big wildfires, the Eaton and
Palisades, that impacted our communities and, have a total
damage and economic loss of between $250 to $275 billion.
Per NOAA's Office of Coastal Management, the 2024 hurricane
season resulted in $182 billion in damages, higher than the
average over the past 5 years. Can you speak to how DOGE's
unjust mass firings are impacting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's ability to conduct environmental permitting that is
required by law to protect threatened animals and habitats?
Mr. Miko. I appreciate the follow-up.
What I can say is that every day I am impressed by the
dedication of the Fish and Wildlife employees, and they are
working hard to create and identify efficiencies, use
innovation to continue to meet the mission of the agency and
the Administration's priorities.
Ms. Rivas. But with the firings, are they causing delays in
environmental permitting?
Mr. Miko. Yes, again, I appreciate the follow-up, and I do
not have the information on timing at this point. Again, with
my newness in the position, I don't know what timing was prior
to what it is at the moment.
Ms. Rivas. OK, then I will follow up with you to get that
answer, because I can't imagine you are able--that the teams
are able to continue to do this work if you are losing that
many employees.
Mr. Miko. I would be happy to follow up with you.
Ms. Rivas. OK. As I mentioned in my opening, I am concerned
about how my Republican colleagues and Trump's plans to fire
staff, sell public lands to the lowest bidder, and prioritize
polluters' profits over the well-being of our communities will
cause irreversible damage to wildlife, habitats, and our
safety.
Thank you, and I yield back to the Ranking Member.
Ms. Elfreth. Thank you, Representative.
Mr. Miko, I want to follow up on the line of questioning
just now, but also from my colleague from Michigan. When she
asked you about invasive aquatic species, which is also a grave
challenge to my district which borders the Chesapeake Bay, you
mentioned that you are going to be hiring people to address the
lamprey issue. But I understand that this entire Administration
is currently under a hiring freeze. So can you help me
understand how you are going to meet the mission and meet this
moment while you are cutting employees and you can't hire
anybody new?
Mr. Miko. I appreciate that question.
I don't know the details of the hiring practices to allow
staffing of our seasonal employees for this program, but I can
certainly get back to you on those details.
Ms. Elfreth. OK. I think we have a lot to get back to in
terms of details. I appreciate you are fresh in this role, not
fresh to the Department, but these are really concerning and, I
think, bipartisan challenges that we are facing here based on
permitting delays, as Ms. Rivas said, or controlling invasive
aquatic species, which is different species but a challenge for
communities and districts across this country. So I would
really appreciate a lot of follow-up in person, I am happy to
meet, or in writing, which we are happy to submit.
And I will yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr.
Walberg for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr.
Miko, for being here.
Coming from the Great Lakes, and especially having a
district that runs from Lake Michigan to Lake Erie, invasive
species are a significant concern for us. And having spent time
on the Asian carp problem for a long time now, having visited
the Brandon Road Interbasin Project on at least one
opportunity, I am focused on this invasive species issue of
great concern.
Recently, President Trump signed a memorandum directing his
Administration to implement the necessary measures to prevent
the migration of invasive carp into the Great Lakes basin,
which would destroy so many things, recreation as well as
fisheries, in the Great Lakes. And I applaud the President for
his swift action to protect the Great Lakes.
My question is, how is the Fish and Wildlife Service
planning on carrying out this direction from the President, and
what regulatory barriers might exist that would prevent a rapid
response from taking place, if necessary?
Mr. Walberg. Thank you for your question and interest in
invasive species. We also appreciate President Trump's interest
and support in that effort.
We understand that the Great Lakes support over $5 billion
recreation and commercial interest to the United States,
supports over 35,000 jobs, and those are threatened by the
advancement of Asian carp in the system.
We are working closely with our Federal partners, with
States to conduct, commercial fishing efforts to fish back the
leading edge of those invasive carp to keep them from moving
closer to the Brandon Road Project to reduce the risk of those
species getting introduced into the Great Lakes.
We have right now a pilot program, it is called a rapid
response pilot program, it is in a pilot stage, that allows
States to apply when they find a new invasion of a species so
we can respond rapidly and quickly to that before those species
become established, and eradicate those species where they are
at their riskiest opportunity for eradication, before they
become established and before we need to spend taxpayer dollars
to combat and control like we are doing with Asian carp.
Mr. Walberg. What type of enhanced monitoring programs do
you have to carry out that, not only for Michigan, but for
surrounding States, as well?
Mr. Miko. Yes, monitoring is the key to identify those
species early. We use tools such as environmental DNA to detect
presence of DNA that may have been shed by those species. It
doesn't tell us if they are there, but it tells us that their
cell data is there, and allows us to then go in early and try
to detect those species and then provide eradication efforts
when they are found.
Mr. Walberg. Well, over the past several years there have
been instances of various Asian carp species found in Lake Erie
and Lake Michigan, as well. And so that is what you are talking
about. Because so far we have not had the worst impact from
Asian carp in the Great Lakes, but that is how you are
monitoring getting ahead of the game.
Mr. Miko. Yes.
Mr. Walberg. Well, keep at it. I appreciate that. This is a
project that should have been completed some time ago. Having
seen what is planned there, nothing is failsafe, but for too
long we did nothing, and I am glad to see it working, so thank
you.
I yield back.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you, and I want to thank you, Mr. Miko,
for your testimony, and for being here today, and for answering
the members' questions.
The members of the Committee may have some additional
questions for the witness, and we will ask you to respond to
those in writing.
While the clerk is resetting the table, I will then go
ahead and introduce our witnesses for our third panel today: we
first have Ms. Alexis Nungaray, the mother of Jocelyn Nungaray,
from Houston, Texas; Dr. Stephan Howden, a Professor at the
University of Southern Mississippi in Stennis Space Center,
Mississippi; Dr. Rob Young, a Professor at Western Carolina
University in Cullowhee, North Carolina; and Mr. Tom Leonard,
the Alderman of the town of North Topsail Beach, North
Carolina.
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 button on the
microphone.
And we use timing lights. When you begin the light will
turn green. When you have 1 minute remaining the light will
turn yellow. And at the end of 5 minutes the light will turn
red, and I will ask you to please complete your statement.
I will also allow all witnesses to testify before member
questioning.
I now recognize Ms. Nungaray for 5 minutes.
It is wonderful to see you. Thank you for being with us
today.
STATEMENT OF ALEXIS NUNGARAY, MOTHER OF JOCELYN NUNGARAY,
HOUSTON, TEXAS
Ms. Nungaray. Hello. Good morning to the members of the
House of Representatives. I really do appreciate everybody
taking the time to hear my testimony and to share my story as
to why I support Representative Babin's bill on H.R. 3179.
Well, I was a young mom, a teen mom. I had Jocelyn when I
was just 15 years old, when my world changed for the better.
Jocelyn did teach me I was no longer only standing up for
myself, but for my daughter, as well. Me and Jocelyn grew up
together. She gave me purpose to want to make it in this world
because I had little eyes looking at me.
Jocelyn was incredibly bright. She had a smile that lit up
a room, and a smile that was always contagious. From her quirky
sayings to her unique wardrobe style, she had the biggest of
dreams, from wanting to be a famous actress to wishing every
lost animal to have somewhere to call home. Jocelyn's dreams
were cut incredibly short when her life was ripped away from
her by two illegal Venezuelans who were apprehended and
released through our previous administration under their catch-
and-release policy.
Jocelyn should have never encountered these two monsters.
She should have been safe enough in her community to be walking
a short distance from her home and make it back safely. Jocelyn
was sexually assaulted, strangled to death. Her hands and her
feet were bound, and she was left under a bridge in a bayou of
water to rot like she was garbage. She was robbed of a future
that we will never get to see come true.
It has been 11 months and 4 days since Jocelyn has
physically been here on this Earth. It has been that long since
I have felt the warmth of her hugs, and that long since I have
seen her smile. Jocelyn's love for all outside creatures was
truly unmatched. She has taken in injured pigeons, nursing them
back to health, taken care of tree frogs and toads, all the way
down to snakes and deer, not a care in the world what creature
it was.
When President Donald Trump announced at the State of the
Union address that he had placed an executive order to rename
the Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge to Jocelyn Nungaray
National Wildlife Refuge, I was stunned, speechless, while
being filled with an enormous amount of gratitude. Having the
Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge be renamed to Jocelyn Nungaray
National Wildlife Refuge is such an honor to an amazing young
girl who lived and breathed all things nature and wildlife
creatures.
It breaks my heart to know that this tragedy had to happen
to make some real changes happen, but it is also a beautiful
reminder that there is such beauty that comes from great
tragedy. Renaming the Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge does not
change the value or the integrity that it so greatly upholds,
but instead it adds deeper meaning: love and peace in the
memory of a brave 12-year-old Jocelyn Lisel Nungaray.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Nungaray follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ms. Alexis Nungaray
Good morning to the members of the House of Representatives. I
appreciate everyone taking the time to hear my testimony on why I
support Rep. Babin on bill H.R. 3179. I was a teen mom, I had Jocelyn
when I was just 15 years old when my world changed for the better.
Jocelyn taught me I was no longer only standing up for myself, but for
my daughter as well. Me and Jocelyn grew up together, she gave me
purpose to want to make it in this world, I had little eyes looking up
to me. Jocelyn was incredibly bright, she had a smile that lit up a
room and a smile that was always contagious. From her quirky sayings to
her unique wardrobe style, she had the biggest of dreams. From wanting
to be a famous actress to wishing every lost animal to have somewhere
to call home. Jocelyns dreams were cut incredibly short when her life
was ripped away from her by two illegal Venezuelans that were
apprehended and released through our previous administration under
their ``catch and release'' policy. Jocelyn should never have
encountered these two monsters. She should've been safe enough in her
community to be walking a short distance from her home and make it back
safely. Jocelyn was sexually assaulted, strangled to death, hands and
feet were bounded and she was left under a bridge in a bayou of water
to rot like she was garbage. She was robbed of a future we'll never get
to see come true. It has been 11 months and 4 days since Jocelyn has
physically been on this earth. It has been that long since I have even
felt the warmth of her hugs, that long since I have seen her smile.
Jocelyns love for all outside creatures was truly unmatched, she
has taken in injured pigeons nursing them back to health. Taking care
of treefrogs and toads all the way down to snakes and deers, not a care
in the world what creature it was. When President Donald
Trump announced at the State of the Union Address that he had
placed an executive order to rename the ``Anahuac National Wildlife
Refuge'' to ``Jocelyn Nungaray National Wildlife Refuge'' I was
stunned, speechless while being filled with an enormous amount of
gratitude. Having the Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge be renamed to
Jocelyn Nungaray National Wildlife Refuge is such an honor to an
amazing young girl who lived and breath all things nature and wildlife
creatures. It breaks my heart to know this tragedy had to happen to
make some real changes happen. But it is also a beautiful reminder that
there is such beauty that comes from great tragedy. Renaming the
Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge does not change the value or integrity
that it so greatly upholds, but instead adds deeper meaning, love and
peace in the memory of a brave 12-year-old young girl, named Jocelyn
Lisel Nungaray.
______
Ms. Hageman. Thank you. She is always in our hearts.
I now recognize Dr. Howden for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF STEPHAN HOWDEN, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN
MISSISSIPPI, STENNIS SPACE CENTER, MISSISSIPPI
Dr. Howden. Good morning, Chair Hageman, Ranking Member
Elfreth, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to speak in strong support of the reauthorization
of the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act, and
thank you to Congressman Ezell for your leadership in
supporting this important bill.
My name is Dr. Stephan Howden. I am a professor at the
University of Southern Mississippi and Director of the
Hydrographic Science Research Center. For over 20 years I have
helped lead the Gulf of America Coastal Ocean Observing System,
or GCOOS, one of the 11 regional components of IOOS.
IOOS is one of the most cost-effective, impactful Federal
programs supporting our ocean, coast, and Great Lakes. It is a
cross-sector, bipartisan success story. And reauthorizing it is
not just smart policy; it is essential for public safety,
national defense, economic growth, and resilience. Let me bring
this home with a few examples from my own work in Mississippi
and across the Gulf.
In 2005, just 8 months after we deployed our first ocean
observing buoy off the coast of Mississippi, Hurricane Katrina
hit. Our buoy was one of the only systems that survived, and it
kept sending out vital wind data in real time as other
infrastructure had failed. Those data weren't just useful, they
were lifesaving.
Years later, during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, it was
surface currents data from IOOS high frequency radars that
helped NOAA model the spill dispersal and direct the clean-up.
Without that regional capability, response efforts would have
been slower, costlier, and less effective.
In recent years we have deployed ocean gliders, low-power
autonomous vessels that measure the heat content in the upper
ocean. Why? Because storm intensity is still the hardest part
of the hurricane forecasting, and the temperature of the ocean
is a major factor driving its intensity. It has been shown that
these gliders are cost effective and capable of helping NOAA's
National Hurricane Center improve intensity forecasts by up to
50 percent. That means more accurate warnings, better
evacuations, and billions in potential savings. These are just
a few examples of how this national program enables game-
changing information for Americans in the Gulf, and how our
region, in turn, supports our Nation's economy and security.
IOOS works because of its structure. It combines strong
Federal coordination and certification from NOAA with the
flexibility of regional public-private partnerships that
leverage capacities across sectors and are attuned to State and
local communities. It ensures all data, whether from a buoy off
the coast of Mississippi, a radar in Alaska, or a glider in the
Caribbean meets rigorous Federal standards, and it shares these
data freely and publicly with the National Weather Service, the
Coast Guard, emergency managers, fishers, shrimpers, offshore
energy operators, researchers, private industry, and more.
IOOS supports lifesaving search and rescue operations
through the U.S. Coast Guard, marine navigation that helps move
1.6 trillion in foreign trade through U.S. ports, commercial
and recreational fisheries and aquaculture that depend on real-
time ocean conditions, and the next generation of ocean
innovators train through university partnerships like our own
at the University of Southern Mississippi, where we work
closely with NOAA, the Navy, and entrepreneurs across the
private sector. All of this, every buoy, radar station, glider,
and data service and product rests on the foundation laid by
the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act.
Reauthorizing this Act means preserving a system that
delivers for communities across the country, rural and urban,
inland and coastal. It means supporting smart and actionable,
science-based decisions in the face of growing risks, and it
means protecting one of the most trusted, nimble, and widely-
used sources of ocean data in the world. IOOS is not just about
science and data. It is about safety, sovereignty, and smart
governance. Reauthorizing this critical law is a win for our
Nation.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Howden follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Stephan Howden, Professor, University of
Southern Mississippi, Stennis Space Center
Good morning Chair Hageman, Ranking Member Hoyle, and Members of
the Subcommittee.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak in strong support of the
reauthorization of the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System
Act--and thank you to Congressman Ezell, for your leadership in
sponsoring this important bill.
My name is Dr. Stephan Howden. I'm a professor at the University of
Southern Mississippi and Director of the Hydrographic Science Research
Center. For over 20 years, I've helped lead the Gulf of America Coastal
Ocean Observing System, or GCOOS--one of the 11 regional components of
IOOS.
IOOS is one of the most cost-effective, impactful federal programs
supporting our ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes. It's a cross-sector,
bipartisan success story. And reauthorizing it is not just smart
policy--it's essential for public safety, national defense, economic
growth, and resilience.
Let me bring this home with a few examples from my own work in
Mississippi and across the Gulf:
In 2005, just eight months after we deployed our first ocean
observing buoy off the coast of Mississippi, Hurricane Katrina hit. Our
buoy was one of the only systems that survived--and kept sending out
vital wind data in real time as other infrastructure failed. Those data
weren't just useful--they were lifesaving.
Years later, during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, it was surface
current data from IOOS high-frequency radars that helped NOAA model the
spill dispersal and direct the cleanup. Without that regional
capability, response efforts would've been slower, costlier, and less
effective.
In recent years, we've deployed ocean gliders--low-power,
autonomous vessels that measure heat content in the upper ocean. Why?
Because storm intensity is still the hardest part of hurricane
forecasting, and the temperature of the ocean is a major factor driving
its intensity. It has been shown that these gliders are cost-effective
and capable of helping NOAA's National Hurricane Center improve
intensity forecasts by up to 50%.
That means more accurate warnings, better evacuations, and billions
in potential savings.
These are just a few examples of how this national program enables
game-changing information for Americans in the Gulf, and how our region
in turn supports our nation's economy and security.
IOOS works because of its structure. It combines strong federal
coordination and certification from NOAA with the flexibility of
regional public-private partnerships that leverage capacities across
sectors and are attuned to state and local concerns. It ensures all
data--whether from a buoy off the coast of Mississippi, a radar in
Alaska, or a glider in the Caribbean--meets rigorous federal standards.
And it shares those data, freely and publicly, with the National
Weather Service, the Coast Guard, emergency managers, fishers,
shippers, offshore energy operators, researchers, private industry, and
more.
IOOS supports:
Life-saving search and rescue operations through the U.S.
Coast Guard
Marine navigation that helps move $1.6 trillion in in
foreign trade through U.S. ports
Commercial and recreational fisheries and aquaculture that
depend on real-time ocean conditions
And the next generation of ocean innovators--trained
through university partnerships like ours at The University of Southern
Mississippi, where we work closely with NOAA, the Navy, and
entrepreneurs across the private sector.
All of this--every buoy, radar station, glider, and data service
and product--rests on the foundation laid by the Integrated Coastal and
Ocean Observation System Act.
Reauthorizing this Act means preserving a system that delivers for
communities across the country--rural and urban, inland and coastal. It
means supporting smart and actionable, science-based decisions in the
face of growing risks. And it means protecting one of the most trusted,
nimble, and widely used sources of ocean data in the world.
IOOS is not just about science and data. It's about safety,
sovereignty, and smart governance. Reauthorizing this critical law is a
win for our nation.
Thank you--and I look forward to your questions.
______
Ms. Hageman. Thank you, and I now recognize Dr. Young for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT YOUNG, DIRECTOR, PROGRAM FOR THE STUDY OF
DEVELOPED SHORELINES, WESTERN CAROLINA UNIVERSITY, CULLOWHEE,
NORTH CAROLINA
Dr. Young. Thank you, Congresswoman, and thank you for the
opportunity.
The 1982 Coastal Barrier Resources Act included a solid
combination of science-based policymaking with a conservative,
free-market approach to risk reduction and environmental
conservation. It was strongly bipartisan, and continues to
receive broad bipartisan support when reauthorized or amended.
Just last year, H.R. 5490, the Bolstering Ecosystems
Against Coastal Harm, or BEACH Act, expanded the Coastal
Barrier Resources System and reauthorized CBRA for another 7
years. It passed both the House and Senate by voice vote.
In addition, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act fits well
with President Trump's March 19, 2025 executive order,
``Achieving Efficiency Through State and Local Preparedness.''
This order extends the Trump administration's goal of shifting
the responsibility for many programs back to State and local
government, and away from the Federal bureaucracy. The order
proclaims, ``It is the policy of the United States that State
and local governments and individuals play a more active and
significant role in national resilience and preparedness,
thereby saving American lives, securing American livelihoods,
and reducing taxpayer burdens.'' CBRA does exactly that, and
has been doing that for more than four decades.
The Coastal Barrier Resources Act did not and does not
restrict the development of privately-held barrier island
properties. The law simply limits Federal spending in those
places. Our analysis shows that CBRA has saved $9.5 billion in
Federal disaster aid between 1989 and 2013, with projected
savings of over $100 billion by 2060. If you develop, you must
incorporate the cost of managing your own hazard risk into that
local economy. That is what CBRA tells us.
The science behind CBRA is clear. I am a coastal geologist.
Barrier islands are predictably hazardous locations on which to
develop, invest, or maintain infrastructure. They are subject
to long-term shoreline erosion, significant and devastating
storm impacts, and rapid changes along inlet shorelines. Many
of this Nation's barrier islands have been completely inundated
by storm waters multiple times over the last three decades.
Coastal hazards on these low-lying, sandy shorelines are
different than other hazards like tornadoes or wildfires in
that they have a significantly higher recurrence interval and
we can, from a scientific perspective, precisely identify the
areas that will experience repeat impacts.
The geologic setting of North Topsail Beach makes it
particularly vulnerable to storms and long-term erosion. Our
beach nourishment database indicates that North Topsail Beach
has received almost 5 million cubic yards of sand for beach
nourishment in 21 episodes since 1997. This is at a cost of
approximately $56 million, adjusted for inflation. The need for
beach nourishment sand will only increase with time, as will
the cost.
It is understandable that any municipality would prefer to
pass this burden onto Federal taxpayers. At the moment, this
desire is in conflict with the stated goals of the Trump
administration to shift that responsibility to States and
localities, and with the clearly expressed desire of Congress
in passing the BEACH Act without these kinds of carve-outs just
a few months ago.
There are many communities outside of the Coastal Barrier
Resources System that do receive Federal funding for beach
nourishment and other Federal projects. There are also many
communities that are outside of the Coastal Barrier Resources
System that have decided to fund their own beach nourishment
projects.
I have tracked national coastal protection projects for
more than 30 years. I believe that we are about to see a
pendulum swing for all projects away from Federal dependence to
local and State funding. The goal at the moment should be to
assist those localities with the development of creative
funding mechanisms and long-term planning to reduce their own
risk without the need for massive Federal expenditure.
Fortunately, the American Shore and Beach Preservation
Association has produced just such a guide.
My greatest concern regarding H.R. 1885 is that it would
open the door to all municipalities within the Coastal Barrier
Resources System to request removal of all lands not zoned
conservation or some other broad criteria. Local zoning
designations are not interchangeable with CBRA. Removing land
from CBRA based on any local criteria would gut the Coastal
Barrier Resources Act and add substantially to the Federal
burden in funding the protection of coastal resort towns.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Young follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert S. Young, PhD, PG, Director, Program for
the Study of Developed Shorelines, Western Carolina University PhD, PG
(b) The Congress declares that it is the purpose of this chapter to
minimize the loss of human life, wasteful expenditure of Federal
revenues, and the damage to fish, wildlife, and other natural resources
associated with the coastal barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts
and along the shore areas of the Great Lakes by restricting future
Federal expenditures and financial assistance which have the effect of
encouraging development of coastal barriers, by establishing the John
H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System, and by considering the
means and measures by which the long-term conservation of these fish,
wildlife, and other natural resources may be achieved.
Coastal Barrier Resources Act, 1982
The 1982 Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) included a solid
combination of science-based policy making with a conservative, free-
market approach to risk reduction and environmental conservation. It
was strongly bi-partisan, and continues to receive broad, bi-partisan
support when reauthorized or amended. Just last year, H.R. 5490 the
``Bolstering Ecosystems Against Coastal Harm (BEACH) Act,'' expanded
the Coastal Barrier Resource System and reauthorized CBRA for another
seven years. It passed both the House and Senate by voice vote.
In addition, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act fits well with
President Trump's March 19, 2025 Executive Order ``Achieving Efficiency
Through State and Local Preparedness.'' This order extends the Trump
administration's goal of shifting the responsibility for many programs
back to state and local government and away from the federal
bureaucracy. The order proclaims: ``It is the policy of the United
States that State and local governments and individuals play a more
active and significant role in national resilience and preparedness,
thereby saving American lives, securing American livelihoods, reducing
taxpayer burdens . . . '' CBRA does exactly that and has been doing
that for more than four decades.
The Coastal Barrier Resources Act did not, and does not, restrict
the development of privately held barrier island properties. The law
simply limits federal spending in those places. Our analysis shows that
CBRA saved $9.5 billion in federal disaster aid between 1989 and 2013,
with an additional savings of up to $108 billion by 2068 forecasted
(Coburn and Whitehead, 2019). If you develop, you must incorporate the
cost of managing your own hazards risk into the local economy.
The science behind CBRA is clear. Barrier islands are predictably
hazardous locations on which to develop, invest, or maintain
infrastructure. They are subject to long-term shoreline erosion,
significant and devastating storm impacts, and rapid changes along
inlet shorelines. Many of this nation's barrier islands have been
completely inundated by storm waters multiple times over the last three
decades.
Coastal hazards on these low-lying, sandy shorelines are different
than other hazards like tornadoes or wildfires in that they have a
significantly higher recurrence interval and we can, from a scientific
perspective, precisely identify the areas that will experience repeat
impacts.
The geologic setting of North Topsail Beach (NTB) makes it
particularly vulnerable to storms and long-term erosion. Our Beach
Nourishment Database indicates that NTB has received almost 5 million
cubic yards of sand for beach nourishment in 21 episodes since 1997.
This is at a cost of approximately $56 million (adjusted for
inflation). The need for beach nourishment sand will only increase with
time as will the cost. It is understandable that any municipality would
prefer to pass this burden on to federal taxpayers.
At the moment, this desire is in conflict with the stated goals of
the Trump administration to shift that responsibility to states and
localities and with the clearly expressed desire of Congress in passing
the BEACH Act without these kinds of carve outs just a few months ago.
There are many communities outside of the Coastal Barrier Resources
System that do receive federal funding for beach nourishment and other
federal projects. There are also many communities outside of the CBRS
that fund their own beach nourishment projects. I have tracked
national, coastal protection projects for more than 30 years. I believe
that we are about to see a pendulum swing for all projects away from
federal dependence to local and state funding. The goal at the moment
should be to assist localities with the development of creative funding
mechanisms and long-term planning to reduce their own risk without the
need for massive federal expenditure. The American Shore and Beach
Preservation Association has produced just such a guide.
My greatest concern regarding H.R. 1885 is that it would open the
door to all municipalities within the CBRS to request removal of all
lands not zoned conservation or some other broad criteria. Local zoning
designations are not interchangeable with CBRA. Removing land from CBRA
based on any local criteria would gut the Coastal Barrier Resources Act
and add substantially to the federal burden in funding the protection
of coastal resort towns.
______
Ms. Hageman. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Leonard for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF TOM LEONARD, ALDERMAN, TOWN OF NORTH TOPSAIL
BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Leonard. Chairwoman Hageman, Ranking Member Elfreth,
and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
to provide testimony today on H.R. 1885. This legislation would
correct a mapping error made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service over 40 years ago when it incorrectly designated the
northern end of Topsail Island, now the town of North Topsail
Beach, as a Coastal Barrier Resources Act, or CBRA, zone.
North Topsail Beach is one of three small towns located on
Topsail Island, a 26-mile-long barrier island between
Jacksonville and Wilmington, North Carolina, and adjacent to
Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune. Due to our proximity to Camp
Lejeune, many of our residents and visitors have a military
connection, including myself, a retired United States Marine
Corps officer with 30 years of service. Like you, North Topsail
Beach plays an important role in the collective Federal, State,
and local effort to preserve and maintain barrier islands.
As the primary law that protects barrier islands, CBRA is a
law that we hold in the highest regard and with the greatest
respect. As effective as CBRA has been collectively for the
Federal Government, the taxpayers, and the environment, the
application of the law in North Topsail Beach has not been
wholly positive or successful. In fact, both North Topsail
Beach and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recognized the
Topsail Unit L06 as one of the most developed CBRA system units
in the United States.
Since CBRA has been overwhelmingly successful at deterring
development, the question must be asked: Why did CBRA not deter
development in North Topsail Beach?
Development continued in North Topsail Beach after the
passage of CBRA because the town already had a full complement
of infrastructure in place before the enactment of CBRA in
October 1982. Having a full complement of infrastructure is one
of the two primary criteria that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service uses to determine if an area is developed and thus not
eligible for inclusion in the Coastal Barrier Resources System,
with the other being the density of development.
A full complement of infrastructure is defined by law as a
road with a reinforced roadbed, a wastewater disposal system,
electric service, and a fresh water supply, all of which must
be sufficient to serve each lot or building site in the area. A
thorough examination of records and documentation, which is
summarized in my written testimony, shows that the north end of
Topsail Island had a full complement of infrastructure that
meets the requirements outlined in the Service's own guidance
and the law.
Roadways have existed along the entire length of Topsail
Island since the 1940s. In 1982 a zoning map shows that all
lots on the northern end of Topsail Island had direct access to
a road with a reinforced roadbed. Jones-Onslow Electric
Membership Corporation has provided electrical service to the
island since the 1940s. Maps supplied by Jones-Onslow show that
even the most northern reaches of Topsail Island had electric
service by 1980. North Topsail Water and Sewer was established
in 1979 to provide water and sewer services to North Topsail.
Onslow County began to construct its own water system to
service the island in 1980. Records established that water and
sewer utility lines ran to the northernmost reaches of the
island by the end of 1981.
Hundreds of structures were built in North Topsail by the
enactment of CBRA, and hundreds more were built in the years
following, due to the substantial infrastructure investments
made on the island by both public and private entities. There
was so much growth in the area that in 1980 West Onslow Beach,
which is now North Topsail Beach, was nominated as a statewide
``growth center.'' It is clear that Congress did not intend to
include the areas in CBRA with such significant on-the-ground
infrastructure investment by private entities and local
governments.
We agree with Congress, which said that, ``An area which
has full complement of infrastructure, some combination of
roads, water, sewers, electrical lines, et cetera, but not
structures suggest that the area is, as a practical matter,
already developed.'' Being included in CBRA has no doubt had an
impact on our community. Our residents cannot qualify for
Federal flood insurance. Our town cannot apply for Federal
grants and loans or name storm assistance. Our veterans cannot
access federally backed mortgage products such as VA loans.
But H.R. 1885 is about equal treatment under the law, and
is in no way an attempt to subvert CBRA. This bill just allows
our community to be treated like any other community that was
not mapped into CBRA, including the two other towns that are on
Topsail Island.
On behalf of the town of North Topsail Beach, I urge you to
support and approve H.R. 1885. Thank you again to the
Subcommittee for this opportunity, to the Subcommittee staff
for their generous engagement with our community, and to
Representative Murphy who sponsored this important legislation,
and Representative Rouzer for his steadfast support as a co-
sponsor.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Leonard follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II13/20250520/118221/HHRG-
119-II13-Wstate-LeonardT-20250520.pdf
------
Ms. Hageman. Thank you, and I want to thank all of the
witnesses for your testimony today. We are going to go to the
members questioning for 5 minutes each, and I am going to begin
with me.
Ms. Nungaray, I want to thank you so much for being here
and sharing Jocelyn's story with us. I have had the opportunity
to engage with you on several occasions as we have had to
relive the terror and the horror that you have had to live with
over the last year. And we all want to express our condolences,
as well as to commend you for the strength and perseverance
that you have shown.
Can you give the Committee just a few examples of Jocelyn's
love of animals, and how that makes the renaming of this refuge
so fitting?
Ms. Nungaray. I appreciate the condolences. The amount of
support really does truly mean a lot to me and my family. I
think that is what has gotten us through a lot of this hard,
hard time in our lives.
But Jocelyn, her love for animals was unmatched, really.
There was a time she took a pigeon into her room and didn't say
anything, just a random street pigeon. And she swore that its
legs were hurt and she was nursing it back to health. And it
was wrapped up in a shirt of hers on her bed. And I don't know
how long she had it there, how many hours, but she was like,
``I am nursing it back to health. I have to save it. It is
hurt.''
She has brought in a Tupperware box, like a large tote that
had about more than a dozen toads in it with dirt. She said she
was making sure that they all had family together. She has
rescued snakes. She has taken care of locusts, which I think
are the ungodly creatures that make the ungodly noises.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Nungaray. But she loved everything about the outdoors.
Every year we had an annual Frio vacation, where we would go
out of town for a week and go into the wild and have a cabin
and spend time with family. And she just lived outdoors, she
found peace in the outdoors and just loved everything about it.
Ms. Hageman. I have a niece that has a collection of 75
snails as her pets, and I would call her quirky, as well. I
think that is a good word, but it is a very positive word.
Ms. Nungaray. Very positive. It makes them unique.
Ms. Hageman. Yes, it does.
Ms. Nungaray But yes, she loved all animals. It didn't
matter what it was. It could have been a pigeon, it could have
been an animal. She had recently just taken in a new cat. My
best friend wasn't able to keep her anymore, and she begged me
for this cat, and she only got to have her for a week, before
she passed. And within that week she just showed her so much
love and care.
Ms. Hageman. Well, I can't wait to visit.
Ms. Nungaray. It is beautiful. It truly has an ungodly
amount of serenity there and peace. It's with peace.
Ms. Nungaray. Please visit. It is beautiful.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you.
Ms. Nungaray. Thank you.
Ms. Hageman. Mr. Leonard, do other communities on Topsail
Island have similar CBRA issues to North Topsail Beach?
Mr. Leonard. Thank you for the question. And no, they
don't. The two other towns are not in CBRA, and they are
geographically the same as North Topsail Beach. They are
serviced by the same infrastructure as North Topsail Beach, but
were not included in CBRA, in the CBRA system, because there
were more structures on the ground at the time the analysis was
done.
Ms. Hageman. So, is this further evidence that the areas in
question in Unit L06 should be removed from the CBRA system?
Mr. Leonard. Again, thank you for your question. I believe
that, yes, the fact that the two other towns on the island in
addition to the southern half of our town are not in the CBRA
shows the misapplication of the CBRA inclusion criteria back in
the 1980s.
In my testimony I provide a reference from House Report 97-
158 OBRA 1981, in which Congress explains that an area that has
a full complement of infrastructure, some combination of roads,
water, sewers, electrical lines, et cetera, but not structures
suggests that the area is, as a practical matter, already
developed.
Ms. Hageman. Well, I appreciate your testimony in that
regard.
And Dr. Howden, just very quickly, you have spent many
years working on coastal issues along the Gulf region before
the IOOS program was formally created by Congress in 2009. You
also state in your testimony that IOOS works because of its
structure. Can you talk about how the creation of IOOS as a
formal program assisted in coastal protection efforts?
Dr. Howden. Yes, thank you for the question.
Prior to IOOS, first of all, there wasn't the same
infrastructure that there is now out in the coastal ocean.
There was no high frequency radar network measuring surface
currents over the coastal ocean, and there weren't gliders,
there were fewer buoys out there.
And one of the real strengths of IOOS is the regional
associations and the way the regional associations reach out to
all the stakeholders in the communities and find out what their
priorities are. And through a number of workshops and meetings,
one of the key variables that kept coming up for fisheries or
search-and-rescue or any number of topics was the need to know
what surface currents are. So the build-out of the high
frequency radar network is a real boon to coastal observing.
Ms. Hageman. I appreciate that, and I now call on Ms.
Elfreth for 5 minutes of questioning.
Ms. Elfreth. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Nungaray, thank you very much again, and I am just in
complete admiration of your strength and perseverance. And as a
kid myself who used to collect tadpoles, your story and your
daughter's legacy has a special place in my heart. And I pray
that you and everybody who loved and knew Jocelyn will be able
to find some peace and solace in the refuge. And hopefully, we
will be able to pass this bill together.
Ms. Nungaray. Thank you so much, I appreciate it.
Ms. Elfreth. Thank you. I would like to move on to Dr.
Young.
Dr. Young, I represent a coastal community myself, of
Annapolis. And I would suggest that a lot has changed in the 40
years since this bill was passed. I wasn't even born. And we
are seeing significant increases in all kinds of flooding, in
sunny day flooding, nuisance flooding, but also storm surges.
In my district alone we see over 50 days a year of flooding.
I am curious. I am not familiar with this particular
community, but based on my own district's experience every day
I am curious if you can speak to the specifics of increased
flooding in the town of North Topsail.
Dr. Young. Thank you for the question.
I didn't come here to pick on North Topsail Beach, but
there are many communities on the East Coast, Gulf Coast of the
United States of America that have seen a tremendous increase
in vulnerability and exposure to coastal hazards over the last
few decades, but in particular over the last 10 years.
North Topsail itself, the municipality, goes right up to
the inlet. Tidal inlets are particularly dynamic places. They
move constantly. The other end of Topsail Island, the inlet
area, was just set aside for conservation. The development
doesn't go all the way up to the inlet shoreline. So the
community of North Topsail Beach does sit within a specially
designated inlet hazard area that the State of North Carolina
delineates for places that have that rapid inlet fluctuation.
Like many barrier islands, it is a low elevation community,
and so it is not the only place on the East Coast of the U.S.
that is seeing increased vulnerability. Our cities and many
shorelines are. But it is in a particularly exposed location
because of its inlet proximity, because of the width of the
island, and because of the low elevation.
Ms. Elfreth. I appreciate that. And I have a note here that
the CBRA system has saved Federal taxpayers $9.5 billion over
the years, and expected, to your point, with increased
flooding, will save tens of billions more as we move forward.
What is the worst thing that can happen here if this bill
passes? What kind of increased development would this allow,
and what kind of bill will the Federal taxpayers have to pay in
the worst case scenario?
Dr. Young. Well, my real concern is the language in the
bill simply states that, the way I read it, whatever is not
currently in CBRA that is not zoned conservation comes out. And
if we extended that to all of the other municipalities that
have some piece of land within CBRA, that is a terrible
precedent. So we would be increasing the Federal tax burden not
just for North Topsail Beach. I think we would be kidding
ourselves if we were to pretend that, if this goes through, you
are not going to see 10 or 12 similar bills in other similar
locations next year, rapidly.
And I understand the claims that North Topsail has long
made about the fact that they were incorrectly included in the
Coastal Barrier Resources System. I have not made that
determination myself, and I am not here to argue that, but I
will say that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
adjudicated that complaint under numerous administrations, as
has Congress in the past, and has denied that particular claim.
Ms. Elfreth. Thank you very much.
And Mr. Leonard, first of all, thank you for your service
to this Nation, and thank you for your service as a local
government official. It is not an easy job, and I greatly
appreciate that.
Mr. Leonard. No, it is not.
Ms. Elfreth. Can you speak just briefly, I only have a few
seconds left, again, we both represent low-lying, flood-prone
areas. I appreciate the purpose of this legislation, but I am
very concerned about its consequences, both locally and
federally.
What would you say to my concerns? How would you respond?
Mr. Leonard. Well, I would like to address those through
some of the comments that Dr. Young has made.
We are looking right now at a CBRA zone that within our
town has 5,886 acres. We are asking for the removal of 590 of
those 5,886 acres. We are looking at approximately 700
structures to be removed. North Topsail has a very aggressive
and very proactive unified development ordinance, we are very
careful with where we allow development, and we are very
careful where we do not allow development. And we have had over
the years people try to develop in areas, and they get shut
down. They get shut down. We just don't allow it.
We are right now, in terms of buildable lots, we are
between 90 and 95 percent built out. We are a donor community,
the National Flood Insurance Program. We pay way more in
premiums than we receive in claims, to the point where probably
over 300 percent more in terms of premiums than we are
reimbursed in claims. Over the period of 1987 to 2015, we
received $524,000 in claim money, and we paid premiums totaling
over $1.7 million.
We just want to be treated like the two other towns on
Topsail Island.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you. And the Chair now recognizes Mr.
Webster for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for holding
this hearing.
Ms. Nungaray, thank you for coming to testify. I am a
father and a grandfather, and my heart goes out to you, your
family, all you are going through. I can't imagine the grief.
And I just thought about how, there is nothing we can do to
bring Jocelyn back, but at least we can do what we are doing,
and that is the minimum, I guess, in naming the wildlife refuge
after her.
Anyway, my question is, though, since President Trump made
that announcement at the State of the Union, or whatever he
called it, have you experienced any kind of pushback or
negativity about from various groups about the action that has
taken place?
Ms. Nungaray. A little bit I have, yes. With me being a
very public advocate for better border security and better
border immigration laws and just more security as citizens, I
have definitely gotten a lot of pushback from people who are
citizens, people who are not citizens.
When it comes to the refuge, I have gotten a lot of
admiration and praise by people who, like you said, know that
we cannot bring her back, but we can at least have her spirit
and be known somewhere where she will always be free and
enjoyed and happy.
Mr. Webster. All right. So have you heard of any groups
that have actually expressed an interest in just reversing it
and not naming it after her?
Ms. Nungaray. To my knowledge, no. Nobody has reached out
to me or my family or any officials that are familiar with me
to change it back. But I hope that everyone will be in
agreeance to keep this as her name, because it doesn't change
the integrity of the importance of this place, it just, I feel,
brings deeper meaning because she had so much love for the
wildlife, animals, and outside.
Mr. Webster. So there has been pushback for the renaming of
the Gulf and so forth by Federal employees, on tours or other
things have expressed, have kind of rejected it by expressing
some sort of different name or whatever. Do you know of anybody
that has done that, someone that has maybe given a tour of the
place or talked about the place, some sort of Federal employee
that would say something differently than your daughter's name?
Ms. Nungaray. Not to my knowledge, no, they have not.
Mr. Webster. Thank you very much. Thanks for coming. Good
to see you.
Ms. Nungaray. Thank you so much.
Mr. Webster. I yield back.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Ms.
Randall for 5 minutes of questioning.
Ms. Randall. Thank you so much, Madam Chair and members of
the Subcommittee, for allowing me to join in today's important
hearing.
I am proud to be leading the Northwest Straits Marine
Conservation Initiative Act with Representative Larsen and
Senator Murray. And the Northwest Straits Commission has been a
lifeline for our communities, providing critical resources like
the marine resources committees in Jefferson and Clallam
Counties, and working alongside Tribes in the State.
The Northwest Straits Commission is a stellar example of
community-led environmental stewardship. Some examples of the
Commission's work include research in managing kelp, management
of derelict vessels, and prevention to protect the surrounding
marine environment from debris and pollutants.
Additionally, the Commission has worked to manage the
critical marine animals' diets in the Puget Sound and our kelp
forests, including the southern resident orcas. Another program
established in Port Townsend by the Jefferson Marine Resources
Committee is being expanded to protect eelgrass and encourage
boaters to be mindful of their damaging effects of dropping
anchors in eelgrass meadows.
This bill represents a strength of community partnership in
Washington's 6th district, and the importance of coming
together to protect and preserve the Puget Sound's natural
beauty for generations to come. The educational resources on
marine issues provided by the Northwest Straits Commission
through the Marine Resource Committees are invaluable to our
neighbors in the 6th district. It is our communities that know
these areas better than anyone and who should be in the
driver's seat, shaping the future of the preservation and
restoration of our natural wonders. It is now more important
than ever to protect invaluable marine habitat that make
Washington's 6th district so unique and special. From abalone
beds and oysters to the rugged coastlines that stretch for
hundreds of miles, our natural resources must be safeguarded to
protect for the future.
And I don't have any questions for this panel, but I do
urge my colleagues on this Committee to support this
legislation and protect the future of our environmental
resources.
And I yield back.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you for joining us today and providing
that important information.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Hoyle.
No? All right, then I am not going to recognize Ms. Hoyle
today.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Hageman. I will recognize Mr. Ezell for 5 minutes of
questioning.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you all for
being here today.
And Ms. Nungaray, I am so sorry for your loss, having spent
my entire life as a law enforcement officer and dealing with so
many problems that could have been prevented had an ounce of
prevention been provided. So just God bless you, and I am so
sorry.
Dr. Howden, you said it perfectly in your testimony the
Integrated Ocean Observing System, IOOS, is not just about
science and data. It is about safety, sovereignty, and smart
governance. IOOS is a single system that supports many needs,
making it a cost-effective investment for the American
taxpayer. The reauthorization of IOOS saves lives and billions
of dollars in our coastal regions. In fact, the value of IOOS's
regional observing system is between $192 million and $233
million per year, creating an economic value approximately 5
times greater than the current annual investment in the system.
The data and information products and services at IOOS support
decision-making and innovation for more than $432 billion GDP
ocean-based economy.
As I previously mentioned, this program touches every
region of the country. This is why it is so widely supported by
among Republicans and Democrats. Madam Chairwoman, I would like
to enter into the record a letter with almost 100 signatures
from Members of Congress in support of this program that
President Trump previously reauthorized and signed into law.
Ms. Hageman. Without objection, so ordered.
[The letter submitted for the record by Mr. Ezell follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II13/20250520/118221/HHRG-
119-II13-20250520-SD008.pdf
------
Mr. Ezell. The passage of my bill, H.R. 2294, will better
the country as a whole, save taxpayer dollars, provide
hurricane data, and much more. I thank Representatives Weber,
Radewagen, Bonamici, and Dingell for introducing this
legislation with me.
Dr. Howden, I would like to ask you a few questions. The
IOOS program relies on regional associations like the Gulf of
America Coastal Ocean Observing System to customize services
for local needs. Can you give an example of how that regional
approach has improved public safety, maritime operations, or
ecosystem management in the Gulf, especially as we prepare for
hurricane season?
Dr. Howden. Yes, thank you for that question. There are a
number of ways that the regional associations help to enhance
the maritime industry.
The surface currents, for example, are important for ships
going in and out of ports, especially in some of the ports like
Houston and Mobile and Tampa Bay, where the pilots will
frequently look at the surface current data before bringing
ships in and out. The hurricane glider project, where we are
measuring heat content and ocean barrier layers in the areas
where hurricanes transmit over the ocean before striking the
coast, those observations, through the IOOS data management
system, get to the Weather Service and they get to the
hurricane forecast models. And so they improve the forecasts
for the hurricanes, and that results in better evacuation
decisions.
Evacuation decisions are very costly, whether you make the
right call or the wrong call.
Mr. Ezell. Right, right.
Dr. Howden. And so that is an important part of the system.
And then there are things like monitoring hypoxia, which
affects shrimpers. There is the harmful algal blooms which have
a impact on shellfish safety. And so the systems for monitoring
those and providing the data for fisheries management is very
important. The temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen
measurements are really important for NOAA's fish habitat
assessments and managing those resources.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you very much. During your time at the
University of Southern Mississippi you operate high frequency
radar systems and ocean buoys in the Gulf of America that
provide real-time data on current waves, winds, and those kinds
of things. And you did describe to us how--the bar pilots use
all that stuff very much, which is so important. If folks don't
know what a bar pilot does, they are very important to our
system.
But can you tell me just a little bit how it helps the
navigation just right in and out, like, trying to get into the
channel or trying to get into the harbor?
Dr. Howden. Yes. So one of the things that IOOS data is
used for is precision navigation. What that means is these
ships are trying to come into port with minimal under-keel
clearances. So NOAA estimates that every inch of draft is worth
about $70,000 for a bulk agricultural product. For consumer
electronics it is worth about $5 to $10 million per inch, and
then for heavy agricultural machinery it is worth $22 million
per inch. So one ship coming in with three extra inches of
draft with heavy agricultural equipment would make more revenue
than any annual appropriation for IOOS has ever been.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you. How important is it that we pass H.R.
2294 and reauthorize this program again like we did under
President Trump?
Dr. Howden. It is very important. If the funding for IOOS
is lost, we will lose the high frequency radar network. IOOS
has the only national network of high frequency radars, so we
will lose that search and rescue capability enhancement and all
the other things that surface current support. We will lose the
hurricane glider program which right now is actually running on
disaster relief, so it hasn't been funded through the core
funding of IOOS. And we would lose all these partnerships that
have been developed, these relationships that have been
developed over the years with all these stakeholders in our
coastal and inland communities.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
Thank you.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you, and I want to thank each of the
witnesses for being here today. You provided some very
valuable, insightful testimony, and I know that I learned some
things and it was a joy to have you.
I also want to thank the members for their questioning and
their engagement today.
The members of the Committee may have some additional
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to
those in writing. Under Committee rule 3, members of the
Committee must submit such questions to the Subcommittee clerk
by 5 p.m. Eastern on Friday, May 23. The hearing record will be
held open for 10 business days for those responses.
And if there is no further business, without objection, the
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:41 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Statement for the Record
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
H.R. 2860 and H.R. 2294
Introduction
The Department and NOAA acknowledge and appreciate the ongoing work
with this Subcommittee on ocean and coastal conservation efforts and
ocean observation infrastructure.
H.R. 2860--Northwest Straits Marine Conservation Initiative
Reauthorization Act of 2025
H.R. 2860 seeks to reauthorize the Northwest Straits Marine
Conservation Initiative Act to enhance the conservation of marine
resources in the Northwest Straits region in Washington state,
including parts of Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The bill
would reauthorize the Northwest Straits Commission, a regional
collaborative body, to provide resources and technical support to
further conservation efforts. The Northwest Straits Commission works to
conserve the marine waters, habitats, and species of the Northwest
Straits region with the goal of achieving ecosystem health and
sustainable resource use.
NOAA has worked with the Northwest Straits Commission on a wide
range of issues. For example, the Northwest Straits Commission has led
collaborations among forage fish experts in the U.S. and Canada. Forage
fish are a critical food source for commercially important salmon, as
well as killer whales. Forage fish are also used as bait for commercial
and sport fisheries. The Northwest Straits Commission provides funding
and technical support for monitoring, research, policy, and local
planning efforts; and to improve conditions for forage fish populations
(e.g., addressing modified shoreline armoring and stormwater runoff
into local embayments).
Additionally, NOAA collaborated with the Northwest Straits
Commission on the Kelp Plan, which provides a research and management
framework for coordinated action to improve kelp beds that are a
necessary habitat for commercially important salmon, rockfish, halibut,
and Dungeness crab.
H.R. 2294--To reauthorize the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation
System Act of 2009
H.R. 2294 would reauthorize the Integrated Coastal and Ocean
Observation System (ICOOS) Act. The original ICOOS Act authorized NOAA
to collect sustained ocean observations, such as ocean current, sea
state, and temperature profile, and to make the resulting data publicly
available. This data is used by other Federal agencies, state and local
governments, and industry to benefit maritime safety and awareness and
weather forecasting.
Conclusion
We appreciate the Subcommittee's support for NOAA's mission and
look forward to working with you on these bills and future legislation.
______
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Ezell
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Mike Ezell, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Mississippi
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) main
goal is to enrich life through science. NOAA has a wide overview of
issues including weather forecasts, severe storm warnings, fisheries
management, coastal restoration, and supporting marine commerce.
One way NOAA achieves their goal is through their Integrated Ocean
Observing System (IOOS--eye yoos). IOOS was established by Congress in
2009. The program was supported in a strong bipartisan way and
reauthorized in 2020 under President Trump's leadership,
IOOS is made up of 11 regional associations and works closely with
17 federal agencies.
The IOOS program operates all throughout the U.S. coastal regions,
from Alaska to the Caribbean, which means there isn't a single part of
the country this program doesn't affect.
IOOS purpose is a vital public-private program that supports a vast
network of buoys, gliders, high-frequency radars, and other sensors
that monitor U.S. waters and provides data, tools, and forecasts to
safeguard the entire U.S. coastline.
IOOS sustains critical, publicly accessible data and data products
that enable coastal and Great Lakes communities to monitor, understand,
predict, and plan for hazards that impact coastal infrastructure and
people, including storms, flooding, hurricanes, rip currents, and
harmful algal blooms.
My bill, H.R. 2294, reauthorizes the IOOS program to safeguard the
United States coasts for the betterment of community, commerce, and
safety.
Now, I am proud to introduce a friend from the Gulf Coast, a
professor at USM, Stephan Howden. Through the IOOS program, Dr. Howden
has been able to provide accurate research through his glider program
which provides more accurate warnings, saving billions of dollars, and
potentially lives for the Gulf Coast.
Dr. Howden, thank you for taking the time to testify on this very
important matter before the Subcommittee.
Madam chair, I yield back.
______
Woods Hole Group
May 19, 2025
Re: U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS)
Dear Dr. Brenner,
I am writing to express my strong support for the U.S. Integrated
Ocean Observing System (IOOS), the regional associations it sustains
across the country, and GCOOS specifically. We at Woods Hole Group
place high value on our collaboration with GCOOS, including contracts
with your organization to provide services essential for the Oil & Gas
operations in the Gulf of America. Our work together on Quality
Assurance and Quality Control of ocean current measurements collected
by drilling units in the Gulf, which is one of the most comprehensive
oceanographic campaigns ever conceived, helps ensure safe design and
operation of offshore production infrastructure. These data also allow
industries such as shipping and fishing to operate efficiently, using
such information to make safe decisions while saving time and money in
benefit of the economy of the Gulf states: Texas, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida.
Woods Hole Group is a commercial entity that also appreciates the
business we do with GCOOS, which has created and helps sustain jobs at
our company for qualified marine professionals. The work we do also
employs the services of marine service providers, work vessels, divers,
and related services and products in the region. These programs play a
vital role in protecting public safety, promoting economic stability,
and advancing the long-term stewardship of our ocean and coastal
resources.
The proposed elimination of funding for IOOS Regional Observations
in the Fiscal Year 2026 President's Budget for NOAA is deeply
concerning. GCOOS and the other 10 Regional Associations that comprise
IOOS deliver critical data, tools, and services that are not easily
replaced and are essential to a wide array of public and private sector
operations.
NOAA and IOOS data products are essential, foundational inputs in
the analyses, models, and solutions developed by Woods Hole Group. We
serve a diverse client base of federal agencies, state and local
governments, Oil & Gas stakeholders, ports and maritime businesses, and
private coastal developers and landowners. Our work leverages tide
gauge, wind, and wave buoy data to quantify flooding, sea sate
conditions, currents, sediment transport, and coastal erosion to
produce representative site characterizations. This work informs
coastal management plans, habitat restoration designs, flood mitigation
strategies, and design criteria for critical infrastructure (thus
reducing its operational risk).
IOOS exemplifies the power of strategic public investment. It
strengthens collaboration among federal agencies, academic
institutions, industry leaders, and local governments, while delivering
measurable economic and societal benefits. Its value extends well
beyond data collection. It is an indispensable regional asset that
supports maritime commerce, port security, emergency preparedness,
fisheries management, and environmental monitoring.
We need more of these data, not less. As a company that relies on
IOOS to support jobs and economic development while protecting
vulnerable communities and ecosystems, we strongly oppose any effort to
defund IOOS Regional Observations. We respectfully urge decision-makers
to ensure that regional associations remain a fully supported and
sustained component of NOAA's mission.
Please continue your outstanding work. You have our full support.
Sincerely,
Robert P. Hamilton, Jr.,
President
______
Tampa Bay Pilots Association
April 17, 2025
Dear Members of Congress:
On behalf of the members of the Tampa Bay Pilot Association I would
like to express our concern about the potential loss of multiple
critical NOAA services due to budgetary and personnel cutbacks
currently taking place at the Federal level. The specific NOAA services
that we rely on routinely are as follows:
PORTS Tampa Bay Wave Buoy-This buoy is funded by ACOE's Coastal
Data Information Program (CDIP) and it is critical for safe navigation
during heavy weather events and for efficient vessel scheduling before
and after those weather events.
NOAA Integrated Ocean Observing System buoys--Four buoys funded by
the Integrated Ocean Observing System regional association (SECOORA) on
West Florida Shelf are critical for safe navigation and monitoring
weather events. These buoys provide critical sea state information to
vessels transiting the Gulf.
NOAA National Weather Service--Navigating the narrow 70+ mile
channels of Tampa Bay in ever changing weather conditions requires
real-time, accurate weather forecasts which we currently receive from
the Ruskin NWS. Loss or limitations to this critical service would
increase the risk of weather-related vessel casualties and/or require
additional safe handling guidelines that would impede commercial vessel
transits.
NOAA PORTS Tampa Bay--Since its inception the PORTS system has
significantly decreased vessel groundings and enabled Pilots to
efficiently move vessels utilizing real-time tide, wind, current, wave
and visibility data. The loss of PORTS would decrease vessel movement
efficiencies and increase the risk of vessel groundings.
NOAA Coastal Surveying and Mapping--Having accurate hydrographic
survey information of areas within Tampa Bay and the coastal vicinity
is critical knowledge during vessel casualty events requiring anchorage
locations and any time is vessel must operate outside of an ACOE
navigable channel. Loss of this information would limit options for
safe operation outside of those channels.
Pre hurricane planning--Accurate storm forecasting and modelling
cannot be understated as related to port operations. The ability to
plan and prepare saves lives (mariners included), protects
infrastructure and results in a quicker post storm recovery. A loss of
this service would be detrimental in many areas of maritime operations.
Post hurricane response--Following the 2024 storms Helene and
Milton the timely surveying response and support from NOAA was
paramount in our ability to safely commence vessel movements within 36
hours of the passing of both storms. The survey data provided was
detailed and accurate and provided the confidence needed to quickly
return to normal commercial operations.
In summary we are hopeful that the NOAA IOOS, NOAA NWS, and ACOE
services that we rely on to safely navigate the channels of Tampa Bay
will remain intact and receive the necessary funding to continue to
operate at the high standards we are currently accustomed to.
Sincerely,
Terry W. Fluke,
Executive Director
______
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
*****
The full document is available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II13/20250520/118221/HHRG-
119-II13-20250520-SD005.pdf
------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Sofar Ocean Technologies
May 6, 2025
Re: Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) Regional Associations
To whom it may concern,
I am writing in response to the news reported on April 11th about
the Fiscal Year 2026 President's Budget for NOAA, specifically for the
Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) Regional Associations. This
scenario would be mutually devastating for NOAA and for Sofar Ocean, a
startup providing critical ocean intelligence and ocean sensors
manufactured in the USA. Public-private partnerships, such as those
cultivated by IOOS Regional Associations, are focused on growing the
blue economy and enhancing public safety. Further, I have heard that
NOAA is being instructed to implement these funding cuts and any
associated reorganization this year, immediately harming maritime and
coastal safety.
As a long-time ocean observations partner of the Integrated Ocean
Observing System (IOOS), I implore you to ensure that IOOS and its
regional associations are retained as a program in NOAA with a specific
budget line that is adequately funded to meet the demands for
information that support safe and efficient maritime commerce, weather
and hurricane forecasting, flooding, harmful algal bloom monitoring,
and other safety-related concerns.
Our work with IOOS supports everything from recreation, fishing,
and tourism to promoting coastal safety through environmental
monitoring. The Blue Economy depends on the ability to gather and use
high quality ocean data. IOOS is a program with strong bipartisan
support, as evidenced by the recent introduction of its reauthorization
bill in the House. It is essential that you support only budget
requests or administration actions that preserve critical programs for
NOAA and for IOOS Regional Associations. These in turn will protect
public safety, economic opportunities, and American jobs in the Blue
Economy.
Sincerely,
Tosca Lichtenheld,
Head of Federal
______
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Gray
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Adam Gray, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California
I want to take this opportunity of having the Acting Deputy
Director of Operations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services here
today to bring an important issue in my district to light. As you all
know, water is vital to the Central Valley. Our agriculture, energy,
ecosystems, and communities are all dependent on reliable access to
water. That's why the Central Valley Project Voluntary Agreements,
which represent a collaborative and science-based alternative to rigid
regulation, are so important. I represent one of the key players in
this conversation, the Merced Irrigation District. Since the 1960s, MID
has owned and operated the New Exchequer Hydroelectric Project, which
includes Lakes McClure and McSwain. This project delivers enormous
value--providing water storage and supply for Merced County, the 5th
largest agricultural county in the U.S., offers critical flood control
for hundreds of downstream communities, generates clean, renewable
hydropower and stabilizes the electric grid, and supports river flows
during droughts, recreational opportunities, and fishery flows,
including the only salmon hatchery on the San Joaquin River system. To
continue operating, MID must renew its federal license through FERC.
That process also requires a Clean Water Act Section 401 certification
from the California State Water Board. In 2015, FERC released a Final
Environmental Impact Statement, a fair and balanced environmental
review that considered MID's needs while strengthening environmental
protections. But while MID worked through the federal relicensing
process, the State Water Board went in a different direction and
adopted Phase 1 of its Bay-Delta Plan, which proposes taking a
percentage of Merced River flows and sending them to the ocean--based
on the possibility of adding just 450 natural salmon per year. That
water would travel more than 100 miles downstream, past farms, cities,
and infrastructure, to reach the Delta. Earlier this year, the State
Water Board released a draft 401 certification that would effectively
bypass FERC's findings, placing the burden of statewide water decisions
on a single regional agency. The consequences would be devastating to
my district. This is not balanced water management and puts the
livelihoods of thousands, the health of our watershed, and our energy
resilience at risk. The Voluntary Agreements offer a better path.
Collaborations between local agencies, state and federal governments,
and environmental organizations deliver real results on habitat, flow,
and accountability. I will work with my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle, as well as President Trump and Governor Newsom, to prevent
overreach. It is crucial for the Central Valley that we find solutions
reflect the complex realities on the ground.
Additionally, in the final days of the Biden Administration the EPA
settled a lawsuit with an environmental litigant regarding Phase 1 of
Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan in California. This triggered ESA
consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service, along with the
National Marine Fisheries Service. I look forward to hearing from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the current status of this. Thank
you.
[all]